Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $70,302
79%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $18k to go!! Thank you all very much!! Let's git 'er done!!

Posts by Colofornian

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?

    05/21/2015 4:36:53 AM PDT · 30 of 44
    Colofornian to Salvation; All
    Catholic indulgences "today" "A special plenary indulgence is granted for the dying." (from the article)...
    Versus Luther, thesis #13:
    Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.
  • What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?

    05/21/2015 4:29:48 AM PDT · 29 of 44
    Colofornian to Salvation; All
    From the article: An indulgence had been issued to raise funds for construction on St. Peter's Basilica, and when it was preached in Luther's area, some of the common folk came away with erroneous ideas.

    This is really a funny statement by the author...stated as if it wasn't St. Peter's Basilica personal fund-raisers like Tetzel weren't behind how these "common folk" "came away" "with erroneous ideas."

    'Twas the false prophets of Rome who were leading them astray like a pied piper!!!

    Johann Tetzel: "You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins...Don't you hear the voices of your wailing dead parents and others who say, 'Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, because we are in severe punishment and pain. From this you could redeem us with a small alms and yet you do not want to do so.' Open your ears as the father says to the son and the mother to the daughter . . ., 'We have created you, fed you, cared for you, and left you our temporal goods. Why then are you so cruel and harsh that you do not want to save us, though it only takes a little? You let us lie in flames so that we only slowly come to the promised glory.' You may have letters which let you have, once in life and in the hour of death . . . full remission of the punishment which belongs to sin..."
    See pp. 78-79 of The Role of Indulgences in the Building of New Saint Peter’s Basilica

  • What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?

    05/21/2015 4:26:19 AM PDT · 28 of 44
    Colofornian to Salvation; All
    From the article: The Ninety-Five Theses were not a manifesto for the Protestant Reformation but a set of propositions for a public debate. They did not deal with any of the doctrines that came to be hallmarks of Protestant theology. For example, they make no reference to justification by faith alone or to theology by Scripture alone (sola scriptura).

    Well, either this author is ignorant of the place of grace (vs. works-righteousness, or other substitutionary "merits") in the 16th century Reformation, and it's hard to believe this level of ignorance actually abounds, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the 95 Theses. Which is it? Vast historical ignorance or deception?

    Luther on grace alone: Luther on Grace Alone (Sola Gratia)

    95 Theses and Grace

    (First, Luther, in #9, mentions how the Holy Spirit manifests grace to us)

    Thesis #58 references how "the merits" [context merits of Christ] "are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man."
    #62: "The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God."
    #68: (Indulgences...referenced in #67) "are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross."

    IoW, when Jesus said "it is finished" from the cross, He used a common phrase of the day known to reference how a debt has paid in full.

    No further Johann Tetzel type of debt installments were needed! (Tetzel: "You should know that all who confess and in penance put alms into the coffer according to the counsel of the confessor, will obtain complete remission of all their sins...Don't you hear the voices of your wailing dead parents and others who say, 'Have mercy upon me, have mercy upon me, because we are in severe punishment and pain. From this you could redeem us with a small alms and yet you do not want to do so.' Open your ears as the father says to the son and the mother to the daughter . . ., 'We have created you, fed you, cared for you, and left you our temporal goods. Why then are you so cruel and harsh that you do not want to save us, though it only takes a little? You let us lie in flames so that we only slowly come to the promised glory.' You may have letters which let you have, once in life and in the hour of death . . . full remission of the punishment which belongs to sin..."... See pp. 78-79 of The Role of Indulgences in the Building of New Saint Peter’s Basilica)

    Hence, Luther begins to wrap up the 95 theses with this warning:

    "Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, 'Peace, peace,' where in there is no peace." (#92) "Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, 'The cross, the cross,' where there is no cross. (#93)

  • What's Wrong with a Little Indulgence?

    05/21/2015 3:58:14 AM PDT · 27 of 44
    Colofornian to Salvation; All
    From the article: God's intervention through indulgences involves the action of the Church. God has made the Church his instrument for dispensing grace and regulating the spiritual lives of the faithful. He bestowed the power of the keys on Peter (Matt. 16:19) and gave him and the apostles the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).

    #13 of Luther's 95 Theses:

    Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.

    Many of the theses deal with the question of the church's reach beyond death on these matters, as if they become a "new" (post-death) way beyond Jesus as THE way (John 14:6).

    For example, see theses 8 thru 13, 22, 25-26, 83, etc.

    Of these, many deal specifically with the guilt of the dead (5, 6, 36, 76) or penalties accrued by the dead (10-12).

  • 8 things you need to know about Easter Sunday

    05/19/2015 4:37:07 PM PDT · 6 of 27
    Colofornian to BipolarBob; All
    The number one thing you need to know is that Jesus did not celebrate Easter.

    Was Easter Borrowed from a Pagan Holiday? The historical evidence contradicts this popular notion.

  • Patriots Won't Appeal Deflategate Decision

    05/19/2015 3:05:42 PM PDT · 33 of 44
    Colofornian to tumblindice; All

    CHEATERS: The breakfast of champions, as fueled by Bellicheat, Deflady Brady, & its owner who 'Krafted' it all!

  • Twin Peaks revokes Waco restaurant's franchise

    05/19/2015 3:03:01 PM PDT · 74 of 78
    Colofornian to Darksheare; All
    So if a group of homosexual activists show up and brawl, could the restaurant refuse them service?

    Well not only that, but consider the numerous times these gangs have shown up in the past minus any incidents.

    That's what's so revisionistically twisted about Twin Peaks' corporate offices:

    Announcement of the franchise revocation came Monday after it was learned the Waco location failed to comply with police requests not to serve bikers at the event, according to the statement:
    We are in the people business and the safety of the employees and guests in our restaurants is priority one. Unfortunately the management team of the franchised restaurant in Waco chose to ignore the warnings and advice from both the police and our company, and did not uphold the high security standards we have in place to ensure everyone is safe at our restaurants. We will not tolerate the actions of this relatively new franchisee and are immediately revoking their franchise agreement. Our sympathies continue to be with the families of those who died and are very thankful no employees, GUESTS, police officers or bystanders were hurt or injured."
    Source: Twin Peaks Revokes Waco Restaurant's Franchise After Shootout

    Hmmm...nice revisionism on the part of Twin Peaks: These biker gangs were "guests" (paying customers) every time they've frequented there in the past...so suddenly, they are less than "guests?"

    But, hey, Twin Peaks is in the cess-press-flesh biz so what'd ya 'xpect from their PR people?

    But to reinforce the point: Where's the outcry from the liberals & the homosexual community on the fact that the Waco PD was repeatedly requesting that Twin Peaks not serve these biker gangs?

    You mean a hue & cry goes across the nation when two homosexual men can't get a Christian-owned bakery to openly sanction their unnatural relationship? But when an entire group of men are targeted for commercial exclusion based upon the type of jacket they where, that's to be lauded & commended by the liberals & homosexual activists & sympathizers?

  • Twin Peaks revokes Waco restaurant's franchise

    05/19/2015 2:59:31 PM PDT · 73 of 78
    Colofornian to DesertRhino; gaijin; All
    They do indeed have a right to refuse service. Ask any number of restaurants that require a collared shirt or a tie. Dress codes can be enforced all day long. You may not refuse service based on race or religion or the other protected classes. But yes, you may indeed have a dress code in a restaurant.

    You are hilarious! I've never been to a Twin Peaks establishment, and never will, but it appears hardly enough "dress" there on the part of its servers to even establish a "dress code."

    And believe me, if there's not enough fabric there for the servers, kinda hard to create one for the customers!

  • Twin Peaks Revokes Waco Restaurant's Franchise After Shootout (^ ^)

    05/19/2015 2:56:46 PM PDT · 100 of 100
    Colofornian to Harmless Teddy Bear; cableguymn; TMA62; Aut Pax Aut Bellum
    Wait a second! I thought we had to serve everybody no matter what. And now that are being punished for serving people who ride motorcycles? This is discrimination against the otherly wheeled!

    Exactly.

    I caught this right away too -- from the very first article I read on it.

    Announcement of the franchise revocation came Monday after it was learned the Waco location failed to comply with police requests not to serve bikers at the event, according to the statement:
    We are in the people business and the safety of the employees and guests in our restaurants is priority one. Unfortunately the management team of the franchised restaurant in Waco chose to ignore the warnings and advice from both the police and our company, and did not uphold the high security standards we have in place to ensure everyone is safe at our restaurants. We will not tolerate the actions of this relatively new franchisee and are immediately revoking their franchise agreement. Our sympathies continue to be with the families of those who died and are very thankful no employees, GUESTS, police officers or bystanders were hurt or injured."
    Source: Twin Peaks Revokes Waco Restaurant's Franchise After Shootout

    Hmmm...nice revisionism on the part of Twin Peaks: These biker gangs were "guests" (paying customers) every time they've frequented there in the past...so suddenly, they are less than "guests?"

    But, hey, Twin Peaks is in the cess-press-flesh biz so what'd ya 'xpect from their PR people?

    Secondly, where's the outcry from the liberals & the homosexual community on the fact that the Waco PD was repeatedly requesting that Twin Peaks not serve these biker gangs?

    You mean a hue & cry goes across the nation when two homosexual men can't get a Christian-owned bakery to openly sanction their unnatural relationship? But when an entire group of men are targeted for commercial exclusion based upon the type of jacket they where, that's to be lauded & commended by the liberals & homosexual activists & sympathizers?

  • Patriots Won't Appeal Deflategate Decision

    05/19/2015 2:48:45 PM PDT · 30 of 44
    Colofornian to EEGator
    They beat the Seahawks with fully inflated balls.

    They weren't playing in a pelting pain, where fumbles tend to be more frequent, and passes aren't as readily nabbed.

  • Patriots Won't Appeal Deflategate Decision

    05/19/2015 2:46:07 PM PDT · 29 of 44
    Colofornian to Ingtar; All
    He should have started and ended his defense with, “The Colts footballs were shown to be under inflated as well,”...

    (Yeah, that's why Kraft had written the NFL the week of the Colts' game, saying to beware of the Colts' underinflated footballs...oh, wait a minute...I got that backwards: 'Twas the Colts' GM that did that 'bout Patriot footballs!)

  • Bikers jailed under $1 million bonds; one bond-reduction hearing set [Waco Trib]

    05/19/2015 2:41:15 PM PDT · 54 of 60
    Colofornian to OrangeHoof; All
    Now, several people will be out of jobs but at least they left still alive. For that, they can be thankful.

    Well, let's address this first. I guess you didn't read what kind of entity this was: Flesh-catering (not so much food catering...scantily clad employees.

    Such employees should (eventually) be thankful to at least (temporarily) be out of this industry.

    And for those who were profiting off of the exploitation of its female "employees," 'tis good that they are out of this kind of "work," too.

    I read where Twin Peaks corporate offices pulled their franchise and slammed the store management for their role in the confrontation. I couldn’t believe it when I read the restaurant refused overtures by police to be present when this “meeting” took place. What a foolish, foolish thing for a store owner to do to their guests and employees.

    Ok, so let's next deal with some of the misnomers surrounding this matter as well (beyond your comments, but related):

    Yes, the police requested that they be included in on the "meeting." Failing that, they had at least a dozen officers on the scene.

    Not sure having more security, more officers on the scene than that, would have pre-empted what occurred.

    As for the Twin Peaks franchise, it issued a statement saying that they were thankful than NONE (as in zero) of their "guests" were injured/hurt:

    Announcement of the franchise revocation came Monday after it was learned the Waco location failed to comply with police requests not to serve bikers at the event, according to the statement:
    We are in the people business and the safety of the employees and guests in our restaurants is priority one. Unfortunately the management team of the franchised restaurant in Waco chose to ignore the warnings and advice from both the police and our company, and did not uphold the high security standards we have in place to ensure everyone is safe at our restaurants. We will not tolerate the actions of this relatively new franchisee and are immediately revoking their franchise agreement. Our sympathies continue to be with the families of those who died and are very thankful no employees, GUESTS, police officers or bystanders were hurt or injured."
    Source: Twin Peaks Revokes Waco Restaurant's Franchise After Shootout

    Hmmm...nice revisionism on the part of Twin Peaks: These biker gangs were "guests" (paying customers) every time they've frequented there in the past...so suddenly, they are less than "guests?"

    But, hey, Twin Peaks is in the cesspool biz so what'd ya 'xpect from their PR people?

    Secondly, where's the outcry from the liberals & the homosexual community on the fact that the Waco PD was repeatedly requesting that Twin Peaks not serve these biker gangs?

    You mean a hue & cry goes across the nation when two homosexual men can't get a Christian-owned bakery to openly sanction their unnatural relationship? But when an entire group of men are targeted for commercial exclusion based upon the type of jacket they where, that's to be lauded & commended by the liberals & homosexual activists & sympathizers?

  • Bikers jailed under $1 million bonds; one bond-reduction hearing set [Waco Trib]

    05/18/2015 9:12:16 PM PDT · 1 of 60
    Colofornian
  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 12:23:47 PM PDT · 30 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    Early in the article, he cites how Brady fumbles for 2012-2014 were .3 per 100 plays better than the NFL average...close to the Falcons, Broncos, Bengals, Saints...of course...he doesn't explain how the Pats' fumble ratio is so much better than the Falcons, Broncos, Bengals, & Saints...especially since both the Falcons & Saints play indoors where no weather impacts half of their games.

    Beyond that, let's take that .3 per 100 plays & run with it for a few minutes.

    In the team rushing stats I was looking at for an earlier post, the Pats were rushing the ball about 440 times to usually upper 400s and a few times early 500 times per season 2007-2014.

    They are well-balanced team...so without taking the time to look @ actual stats...let's double that...let's say they run anywhere between 900 - 1,000 non punt offensive plays were season.

    Let's take the higher number: 1,000...So the difference .3 per 100 plays = a grand total of 3 less fumbles that Brady made in 2012-2014 than the average NFL QB.

    So you're telling us that THE PRIMARY argument this guy gives accounts for a grand total of just 3 fumbles vs. the rest of the NFL teams per season...and THIS is the "blowing up" argument???

    Blown up? Sure...as in this author's windbag...!!!

    Yes, Brady did cut in half his fumbles starting 2007 (vs. 2001-2006).

    While itself sounding suspicious, I don't try to analyze QB fumbles because some are bad snaps, and QBs hold the ball distinctly than other plays.

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 12:05:44 PM PDT · 27 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    In the middle of the article you link, the guy has this subtitle: Note Two: The Patriots are good.

    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...

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 12:01:42 PM PDT · 26 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    Ok, so you did follow up with another post...so I take back that "crickets" comment.

    In looking at the article you linked to, the guy says further down in the article:

    The average offense fumbles 16.55 times per season, or just over once per game. Small numbers are statistically finicky in a number of ways. They are heavily distortion-prone, for example.

    First of all he's right on the average re: fumbles per season; plus he's right that small numbers are statistically finicky in a # of ways...including being distortion prone.

    Yet what does he do to kick off & primarily base his articles on?

    ONLY three seasons ... probably just less than fifty fumbles to evaluate!!! (2012-2014)

    IoW, he refutes himself!

    He sums up: Don't rely on a small #...and then he telescopes the fumbles controversy from a study of 16 yrs to just three!!! He commits the same distortion error he rightly complains about!!!

    Patrick Sharps analysis...and my follow up...looked at Pat stats from either 2000-2014...I went back to 1999.

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 11:54:22 AM PDT · 25 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto; Covenantor; All
    Yeah. (that's what I thought)

    Your fictional graspingatstraws firstline explanation in post #18 is vaporized in posts #19 & #20...and so...a "cricket" response in post #21 where there's no acknowledgement that it was so far removed from NFL reality.

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 10:31:20 AM PDT · 20 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    Easy. BB emphasis not fumbling the ball benching/cutting players who fumble.

    So...your claim is that BB... Bill Bellicheat...turned the Pre 07 fumble rate around by cutting or benching players who fumble?

    This is answerable from three angles:

    (A)

    IF THAT was the case, Brady has ALWAYS been the Pats' top fumbler...Bellicheat would have dumped Brady or benched him long ago!

    (B) Who did the Pats get rid after the zerosix season?
    (C) Chart comparing 20 specific players who either played with NE before 07 and thereafter; or who were with a NE team sometime 07 to 14 and compare their fumble stats to OTHER teams either during same period or before 07.

    The latter (C) breakdown is here:
    20 player fumble comparison chart

    I'll return to (C) after covering (B):

    So...who did the Patriots dump after the zerosix season?

    Answer: RB Corey Dillon, who retired. But to contend he was bumped because he was fumble happy belies the stats. He only fumbled 3x in last 2 years in which he had 445 touches...1 fumble per 115 touches is not much...

    The Pats also dumped Patrick Pass after that season as a backup...but his 4 fumbles in six Pat seasons not an earthshattering contribution...

    (C) Back to the chart...

    If your claim was so, then Kevin Faulk...who fumbled a fair amount for the Pats 1999 to 2006, should have been on BB's sudden bench chart...yet for seasons 07, 08 and 09, when Faulk suddenly greatly REDUCED his fumbles, he had more attempts each season than for 01, 02, 04, 05, and 06.

    Later, BenJarvus GreenEllis had ZERO fumbles in almost six hundred touches for the Pats...and BB dumped him to the Bengals.

    Look at the players on the chart...
    ...RB wise...
    * Sammy Morris got his fumbles for 2 other teams for 7 yrs...THEN came to the Pats for his final two seasons...fumbled much less.
    * Fred Taylor...11 yrs with Jacksonville...then finished 2 yrs with Pats...his fumble ratio was consistent thru both teams.
    * LaMont Jordan...08 season with Pats after 7 yrs with 2 other teams...only fumbled once for Pats before moving onto Denver
    * LeGarrette Blount...came to NE after 3 yrs with TB & actually greatly improved fumble ratio...didn't fumble at all in lone Pat season...2014
    * Heath Evans...no fumbles for Pats before moving on
    * Laurence Maroney...yes, had more fumbles for Pats in 09...but MORE fumbles in 07 to 14 era doesn't explain why Pats had LESS fumbles in that era...by comparison only fumbled once in rookie ohsix season...
    * Danny Woodhead...only 1 fumble every 130 touches with pats is pretty good...and his regular season ratio was even better...1 of those 3 fumbles over several yrs was in a playoff game...

    Since receivers contribute over 20 percent of fumbles, their touch comparisons are relevant...
    ...Per the chart...
    * Deion Branch, jabar Gaffney, Brandon Lloyd, Donte Stallworth zero fumbles while in Pat uniforms so not like BB wanted them to move on for that lame cited reason...

    * Amendola had more fumbles in the NFC...then came over to Pats where he greatly improved (1 in 42 touches vs. 1 in 92)...btw...special teams' fumbles were excluded in this analysis because that's where neutral balls were used

    * Lafell Edwards' first year with Pats was 2014...so that comparison actually runs vs. earlier 4 yrs with Carolina.

    * Tate only had 1 non special teams fumble with pats.

    * Welker...HALF of his fumbles with Pats were special teams' related...therefore, as a receiver only 1 fumble in 127 touches with Pats was a pretty good ratio.

    Bottom line with 20 player comparison?

    Pats 07 to 14...4700 touches...only 32 fumbles...1 fumble per 145 touches...an unheard of number!!!

    Those same players either in a Pat uniform pre 07 or playing for other teams: 10,107 touches...116 fumbles...1 fumble per 87 touches...

    So why were these SAME EXACT players 67 % better fumble wise either playing for other teams...or, if they played for Pats before & after 06, why so much better after 06?

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/14/2015 9:30:00 AM PDT · 19 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    Easy...Not running as much as other teams.

    Do you just make things up wholecloth?

    Go to espn yourself...enter the season you want & look for yourself...2007, for example...http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/year/2007

    Attempts wise...

    2007: Pats ran more than 23 other teams & tied w/another
    2008: Pats ran more than 27 other teams
    2009: Pats ran more than 24 other teams
    2010: Pats ran more than 22 other teams
    2011: Anomaly...cause I believe this was yr Brady was out...hurt...ran more than 13 other teams...within 10 attempts of another 4 teams
    2012: Pats ran more than 31 other teams
    2013: Pats ran more than 23 other teams
    2014: Pats ran more than 20 other teams...

    Beyond that, only 23 percent of fumbles occur on nonQB running plays...and 21 percent occur on receptions...so you can't reduce this to the rb rushing game...(nice try)

    Successful offenses simply garner more plays...so not only have Pats often ran more than other teams...same with passing...

  • New mother claims doctor left his MOBILE PHONE inside her after delivering her baby...

    05/14/2015 12:21:52 AM PDT · 21 of 38
    Colofornian to doug from upland; All
    (They are labeled "smart phones" because we all know they are smarter than the operators who own them)
  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/13/2015 7:37:08 PM PDT · 16 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    From the article you cited: Why, that data almost suggests that nothing nefarious happened at all!

    Why, that lack-of-fumbles data almost suggests that the Patriots have been engaging in nefarious activities with footballs going back to the 2007 season!

    So, nefarious, in fact, that the Patriots' DEFENSE fumbled the ball...
    ...more often in (take your pick which of these following seasons) – 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999 than the Patriots' running backs did rushing the ball in 2007 – even including all three playoff games?
    ...That Patriot DEFENSE fumbled the ball as often in 2001 as the Patriots' running backs did rushing the ball for the entire 2007 and 2008 seasons combined (35 games including three playoff games)?!
    ...That Patriot DEFENSE fumbled the ball as much combining regular seasons 1999-2003 as did the Patriots running backs' rushing the ball combining regular seasons 2007-2008 and 2010-2011?

    Nefarious indeed! Shenanigans indeed!

  • Namath downplays Deflategate, questions if Pats did anything wrong

    05/13/2015 7:35:27 PM PDT · 15 of 35
    Colofornian to Leto
    From the article you cited: Why, that data almost suggests that nothing nefarious happened at all!

    Why, that lack-of-fumbles data almost suggests that the Patriots have been engaging in nefarious activities with footballs going back to the 2007 season!

    Charting a Snapshot of 'Ballghazi's' 'Ghost': A

    Category 2006 NE Season 2007 NE Season
    Overall fumbles 31 (27 regular season) 17 (14 regular season)
    Rushing fumbles by Patriot running backs 7 (19 games, including 3 playoffs) 0 (19 games, including 3 playoffs)
    Fumble rate per game Avg team: 1.5 vs. NE's 1.6 Avg team: 1.6 vs. NE's 0.8 (Less fumbles by half!) Note: Even indoor based teams averaged 1.55 fumbles per game)
    Brady's Completion % 61.8% 68.9%

    Charting a Snapshot of 'Ballghazi's' 'Ghost': B

    Fumbles by Teams Per Game
    2003-2006 NE 2003-2006 Other 31 teams 2007-2014 NE 2007-2014 Other 23 Outdoor teams 2007-2014 Indoor-based teams (8)
    1.46 1.6 0.96 [this is improvement of 1 less fumble every 2 games vs. previous NE teams] 1.46 [this means one more fumble every 2 games than NE] 1.29 [this means one more fumble every 3 games than NE]

    Source for most raw fumbles-per-games stats: NFL Team Fumbles per Game: Per Year 2014 → 2003
  • 10 REASONS WHY AN APPEAL OVERTURNS TOM BRADY’S SUSPENSION

    05/13/2015 7:21:30 PM PDT · 35 of 37
    Colofornian to servo1969; All
    #10. Ted Wells Judges 100 Seconds Enough Time to Deflate Balls But 13 Minutes Not Long Enough for Refs to Test Balls?

    I see the author was REALLY desperate for anything to fill out a #10

    Refs don't practice weighing balls all week...Equipment mgrs knowing they have a limited amount of time can certainly do that...

    100 seconds? Give an NFL team out of timeouts 100 literal seconds ... including clock time stoppage for first downs...and that's an "eternity" to run 11 plays, if necessary. If they can run 11 plays with great mobility over a 100 yard field in 100 literal seconds, a guys who is stationary and has plenty of locker room practice (either pregame and/or what they've done EVERY week going back to 2007 or however long they've been employed) would have no sweat accomplishing this 11 football task.

  • 10 REASONS WHY AN APPEAL OVERTURNS TOM BRADY’S SUSPENSION

    05/13/2015 7:20:33 PM PDT · 34 of 37
    Colofornian to servo1969; All
    #3 A Whole Lot of ‘More Probably Than Not’ Adds Up to Unlikely

    The author should go on & whine 'bout 100% of civil suits settled by this standard...

  • 10 REASONS WHY AN APPEAL OVERTURNS TOM BRADY’S SUSPENSION

    05/13/2015 7:19:38 PM PDT · 33 of 37
    Colofornian to servo1969; All
    #6. The Refs and Their Gauges Fluctuated Greatly

    (IF that was the case...so does a LOT of NBA officiating...it's become more subjective as players became more physical thru the decades...yet I haven't heard writers like this one whine about the entire tenor of whistles blown during playoffs just because many fouls are "let go" and some nonfouls are called)

    If that was the case EVERY NBA victory of any closer game could be called into question.

  • 10 REASONS WHY AN APPEAL OVERTURNS TOM BRADY’S SUSPENSION

    05/13/2015 7:18:35 PM PDT · 32 of 37
    Colofornian to servo1969; All
    #5 The NFL Doesn’t Punish for Ball Tampering

    Whatever similarities (re: what other teams have done), as far as I can tell, the culprits didn't engage in an overt coverup.

    Some of the other ball tampering has been suspected, but no "sting" operations during the games were engaged in to yield more evidence.

    And, indeed, some writers are using the word "sting" because the Colts GM complained about this issue to the NFL BEFORE that playoff game.

    IoW, the officiating crew was tipped off by the NFL to be aware of ball cheating.

    This matter could readily be compared to any "sting" operation by law enforcement officials.

    A "sting" catches somebody in the act.

    And all the times that sting doesn't happen means the cheaters & the criminals are getting off scot free.

    This statement therefore wreaks of a conclusion that just because law enforcement fails to perform more sting ops, the laws on the books for whatever violation that is "goes unpunished."

  • 10 REASONS WHY AN APPEAL OVERTURNS TOM BRADY’S SUSPENSION

    05/13/2015 7:16:03 PM PDT · 31 of 37
    Colofornian to 9YearLurker; NKP_Vet; servo1969; All
    People who don’t really know what they’re talking about shouldn’t write columns like this. E.g., they offered to go to whatever convenient location at whatever time to get what would have been for Wells only a second opportunity to interview The Deflator.

    Yes.

    Re: lame 4th talking point of an "Apologetic for Cheaters": Wells Report Misleadingly Says Pats Shielded Ball Handler from Follow-Up Interview

    Even a Boston newspaper notes...:
    The Patriots refused to make McNally available for a follow-up interview after the investigators discovered new information, ostensibly the “deflator” comments in McNally’s texts. Their rationale was that McNally already had been interviewed four times, and a fifth time would have been excessive, because he lives in New Hampshire and has a job. Sorry. You make him available on the weekend, or after work. If McNally could exonerate the Patriots, they should have made him available 27 times...
    Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    Where did I read that the Patriots, when told by the investigator they had new info they wanted to run by McNally for a 5th interview, told the NFL they wouldn't even pass it on to McNally.

    That's not "shielding?"

    ('Tis a strange def)

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/13/2015 5:48:28 PM PDT · 54 of 54
    Colofornian to LearnsFromMistakes
    What type of pass plays are more fumble prone, and where do the pats fall on that chart.

    I covered this already last post...payin' attention, I would hope: 21 percent of all fumbles occur on sacks; 18 percent on snaps...

    Does Brady’s style of holding the ball compare to qb’s that fumble a lot vs qb’s that dont (there has to be some reason that some qb’s fumble more...or maybe not)?

    OK...MOST QB fumbles CANNOT be subjected to same analysis as other fumbles...

    Think about it for a second...

    (1) Snaps from center:

    Almost ALL of these occur without the QB ever having actual control of the ball.
    They are actually the equivalent of what is deemed a "muff" on a special teams return. By rule, for a fumble to occur on special teams, a returner has to have possession. So rules - from high school to the NFL - treat muffs differently to some degree than fumbles.

    Now, since the offense ALREADY has down possession, when a snap is fumbled, yes it's statistically recorded as a "fumble" & not a "muff." But this constitutes a "team" possession...and not usually "personal" possession by the QB.

    (2): QB sacks

    When QBs retreat to pass...
    ...the ball is untucked...held up near the chest...
    ...the ball then is often transitioned to one hand, sometimes beginning to be extended to throw or a fumble may occur when the QB is already in the act of throwing...
    ...so the very nature of how the ball is held is precarious and subject to fumbles...regardless of whatever the psi is...

    In addition to all of that, QB are usually looking downfield...
    ...so "surprises"...including surprise blitzes... offer another element that no other position has to deal with.

    There's no way any analyst can treat QB fumbles the way others are treated. (I was hoping all of that would be obvious to you w/out be having to state all of that) , the QB doesn't see the man who causes the fumble.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 8:00:57 PM PDT · 48 of 54
    Colofornian to LearnsFromMistakes; All
    I didn’t see in your post where you laid out fumbles per quarter, running plays per quarter, that kind of stuff.

    Why would I want to lay out the running plays per quarter when over threequarters of fumbles don't even occur on designed running plays?

    (More sloppy analysis)

    Per The definitive analysis of offensive fumbles...

    ...Only 23.2 percent of fumbles occur on nonQB running plays.

    Over 1/3rd of all fumbles are on QB sacks + QB negative runs.

    21 percent are fumbles on receptions
    18 percent occur on snaps...
    less than 4 percent on QB running plays (positive yardage)

    Thus, significantly more likely to be a fumble on a passing play than a running play...

    See also: Fumble Rates by Play Type

    Per this second link, fumbles occur on 2.04 percent of pass plays and only 1.16 percent of running plays. Fumbles occur on 18 percent of all sacks.

    We know on average only 2.3 fumbles per game (NFL BY THE NUMBERS, which means for every two NFL games, 4.6 fumbles...about 1 of which comes on a reception; 1 on a RB rushing play...and the rest via the QB.

    It seems to me with this post and post #24 that you assume fumbles are largely consigned to the RB...they are not...

    How does this tend to break down by quarter?

    Well, take a look at this sampling of the Quarterly Trends for the Falcons' Offense ... accumulative fumbles lost by quarter 2008-2013:

    The Falcons, accumulatively for 2008 - 2012...lost the most fumbles in the 2nd qtr, followed by the 3rd qtr, and then the 4th qtr...In 2013, the Falcons lost more fumbles in the 4th qtr, then the 2nd qtr, then the 3rd qtr. The first quarter was the most consistent fumble-free quarter.

    If you threw in the 2013 stats with the 2008-2012 accumulative stats, the 2nd qtr still outdoes the 4th qtr for more fumbles lost.

    Otherwise, if you want to make a claim...like your post #24 did minus any stats or numbers, just an observation of yours not backed up by the stats...feel free...but it's basically an argument "from silence."

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:56:25 PM PDT · 44 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    These points come from a Breibart article.

    Oh.

    So post #31 is where you are citing somebody else's apologetic ... all minus giving not only proper attribution there...but any attribution.

    Well, hey, then: Your absence of attribution in post #31 is enough to warrant the genesis of something on the negative side, if not derogatory.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:49:58 PM PDT · 42 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    #5 The NFL Doesn’t Punish for Ball Tampering

    (a) the author of this piece...and other sports writers ...have addressed this...

    In other cases, the culprits didn't engage in an overt coverup.

    (b) Some of the other ball tampering has been suspected, but no "sting" operations during the games were engaged in to yield more evidence.

    And, indeed, some writers are using the word "sting" because the Colts GM complained about this issue to the NFL BEFORE that playoff game.

    IoW, the officiating crew was tipped off by the NFL to be aware of ball cheating.

    This matter could readily be compared to any "sting" operation by law enforcement officials.

    A "sting" catches somebody in the act.

    And all the times that sting doesn't happen means the cheaters & the criminals are getting off scotfree.

    Your statement therefore wreaks of a conclusion that just because law enforcement fails to perform more sting ops, the laws on the books for whatever violation that is "goes unpunished."

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:40:46 PM PDT · 40 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    #10. Ted Wells Judges 100 Seconds Enough Time to Deflate Balls But 13 Minutes Not Long Enough for Refs to Test Balls?

    Really desperate for anything to fill out a #10, eh?

    Refs don't practice weighing balls all week...Equipment mgrs knowing they have a limited amount of time can certainly do that...

    100 seconds? Give an NFL team out of timeouts 100 literal seconds ... including clock time stoppage for first downs...and that's an "eternity" to run 11 plays, if necessary. If they can run 11 plays with great mobility over a 100 yard field in 100 literal seconds, a guys who is stationary and has plenty of locker room practice (either pregame and/or what they've done EVERY week going back to 2007 or however long they've been employed) would have no sweat accomplishing this 11 football task.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:36:14 PM PDT · 39 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    #6. The Refs and Their Gauges Fluctuated Greatly

    (IF that was the case...so does a LOT of NBA officiating...it's become more subjective as players became more physical thru the decades...yet I haven't heard you whine about the entire tenor of whistles blown during playoffs just because many fouls are "let go" and some nonfouls are called)

    If that was the case EVERY NBA victory of any closer game could be called into question.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:27:26 PM PDT · 38 of 54
    Colofornian to McGruff
    Except I am not a Seahawks or Colts fan...

    Try again with your mind reading...

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:26:44 PM PDT · 37 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    #4. Wells Report Misleadingly Says Pats Shielded Ball Handler from Follow-Up Interview

    Even the Boston newspaper notes...(from thread excerpt above):

    The Patriots refused to make McNally available for a follow-up interview after the investigators discovered new information, ostensibly the “deflator” comments in McNally’s texts. Their rationale was that McNally already had been interviewed four times, and a fifth time would have been excessive, because he lives in New Hampshire and has a job. Sorry. You make him available on the weekend, or after work. If McNally could exonerate the Patriots, they should have made him available 27 times...

    Where did I read that the Patriots, when told by the investigator they had new info they wanted to run by McNally for a 5th interview, told the NFL they wouldn't even pass it on to McNally.

    That's not "shielding?"

    (You have a strange def)

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:20:19 PM PDT · 34 of 54
    Colofornian to Moonman62
    #3 A Whole Lot of ‘More Probably Than Not’ Adds Up to Unlikely

    Haven't heard you whining about 100% of civil suits settled by this standard...

    Why so fresh of an objection?

    Does somebody first have to goard a fave football team for you to declare the Civil suit standard out of bounds?

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:17:57 PM PDT · 32 of 54
    Colofornian to Servant of the Cross
    Yea, if you obstruct or deny our search and seizure of your cell phone, or other body parts, you are guilty ...

    From the Boston article upon which this thread is based:

    Why did McNally and Jastremski text each other about needles, and then lie about a reference to a “friend” that clearly was about Brady? Why did Brady say he didn’t know McNally when Jastremski said he definitely did?

    (I also saw an article that apparently one of these two suddenly visited Brady post game in the locker room after the Colts game...when that had NEVER previously happened)

    Hmmm...seems like the convo is easy enough to partially reconstruct: "Uh, Tom, we got caught at half. Now what?"

    And Why would Brady tell the NFL he doesn't know his own equipment mgrs...especially when one of them is his sudden locker-room visitor post-Colts game?

    So...more evidence than simply what you reduce/make it out to be...and even I reduce it here...as that's the nature of a report 243 pages long.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 1:06:02 PM PDT · 28 of 54
    Colofornian to ConservingFreedom; All
    Physics professor: Deflategate report’s science holds up - http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2015/05/06/physics-professor-deflategate-report-science-holds/T2HqI3vFVivr9grXOD2VEI/story.html

    Yes...deflategate report correct on its science; Pats on the other hand grasping for straws:

    From that link you cited:

    ...University professor Martin Schmaltz....the discrepancies between drops in pressure between the Colts balls and the Patriots balls was likely too much to be chance, according to Schmaltz. “I see that the Colts’ balls pressure dropped about half a PSI and the Patriots balls seem to be more like 1.5, or maybe between one and 1.5,” says Schmaltz. “So it’s a little mysterious why the Patriots’ balls dropped more.”

    (Well, not so "mysterious" when you have an equipment mgr who actually...truly...nicknamed himself "the deflator")

    Continuing that link excerpt: According to the report, the Patriots’ balls began the game inflated to at least 12.5 PSI, while the Colts’ balls were around 13 PSI, give or take a tenth of a PSI. But it’s not the drop in PSI from that reference point that Schmaltz says looks bad for the Patriots, but the drops relative to each other. According to Schmaltz, the ideal gas law equation suggests a drop in temperature from 68 or 70 would produce a drop of less than 1 PSI in a ball inflated to 12.5 or 13 PSI. While the report found the Colts’ balls measured at or around the league-minimum 12.5 PSI at halftime, many of the Patriots balls were a PSI or more below that threshold, a drop so large its unlikely to have been caused by atmospheric conditions. While a 12.5 PSI ball could drop to 11.6 PSI, by his calculations, with a temperature drop from 68 or 70 degrees to 51, given both sets being subject to the same conditions, it’s suspicious the Patriots’ balls would drop so much further.

    And here we had all these FREEPERcheaterapologists in January & February providing defenses for cheating by citing "science"...yet never could address why the fifty one degree weather didn't similarly impact the Colts' footballs...

    I think these FREEPERs would make good cheater apologists explaining why it tends to be dead DEMOCRATS who vote...or why it's living DEMOCRATS who seem to vote early & vote often...

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:55:46 PM PDT · 27 of 54
    Colofornian to LearnsFromMistakes
    The analysis of how many running plays each team averages, how often fumbles happen when you have fewer running plays, teams that don’t have ‘feature’ running backs with 2-3 dozen carries per game and are not as tired at the end of the game when you more likely to fumble.

    Sorry...sloppy analysis...fumbles are NOT more likely to occur the last half of the 4th qtr of any game than other pts of the game.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:53:44 PM PDT · 26 of 54
    Colofornian to bert
    there is no difference in using improperly infalted footballs and intentional fouling in the final minutes of a basket ball game.

    More like no difference in using improperly inflated footballs & improperly inflated basketballs...

    So...hey...just the allow the OTHER team's equipment mgr to get ahold of that basketball of your fave NBA team as your player is about to go to the free throw line with the game on the line with 1 second left...

    Oh, and btw, in case you didn't notice...intentional fouling in basketball is done before all the world to see...not in some secluded place where the equipment mgrs takes the balls...telling the NFL he went there to pee with no urinal in that given room...

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:26:17 PM PDT · 21 of 54
    Colofornian to scooby321; All
    Patriots led the league in the least fumbles every year because a running back can carry a less ball pressure

    Exactly (see post #20)

    Also, Brady's completion % from 06...when nfl supplied footballs...to 07 when they were "Bradyized"...went from 61 to 68 percent...

    Not like Brady was a "slouch" pre 07...given that he led them to 3 Superbowls.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:24:12 PM PDT · 20 of 54
    Colofornian to lepton; All
    Of course you’d leave out that per the same text string you cited, the officials had pumped up the balls to 16 PSI and set them for play in the game. THAT is what he was cited as being upset about.

    Well, let's see...8 years of football since the Pats started supplying offensive one.

    128 regular-season games. With playoffs and some Super Bowls, about 140 games.

    If the avg PSI for 140 games was 11 point something...and they had to deal with ONE beyond the pale PSI...STILL averages 11 point something PSI per game.

    The Patriots since 2006 have fumbled the ball less than every indoor team that has the advantage of no weather home games...Unusual, eh?

    Or how about the reality that the Patriot DEFENSE fumbled the ball as often in 2001 as the Patriots' running backs did rushing the ball for the entire 2007 and 2008 seasons combined (35 games including three playoff games)?!

    ...Or the Pat DEFENSE fumbled the ball as much combining regular seasons 1999-2003 as did the Patriots running backs' rushing the ball combining regular seasons 2007-2008 and 2010-2011?

    Hmmm...

    Those Patriot Lucky Charms have sure been "delicious" to them...

    Now that the NFL has caught on...fumbles will return to New England in 2015 and beyond!

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:15:42 PM PDT · 17 of 54
    Colofornian to Bloody Sam Roberts; All
    The Patriots aren't blaming anyone Ben. They have accepted their punishment and will be proceeding to the appeal phase.

    Oh, sure...the Pats' responding statement sounds REAL "accepting," "humble" and "apologetic":

    Patriots.org: (May 11) STATEMENT FROM NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS CHAIRMAN AND CEO ROBERT KRAFT: "Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it WAS our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, HOWEVER, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence. "We are humbled by the support the New England Patriots have received from our fans throughout the world. We recognize our fans’ concerns regarding the NFL’s penalties and share in their disappointment in how this one-sided investigation was handled, as well as the dismissal of the scientific evidence supported by the Ideal Gas Law in the final report. "Tom Brady has our unconditional support. Our belief in him has not wavered."

    When the partiesthatbe aren't very cooperative, then, yeah, the Pats lost their op to ensure "twosidedness."

    (That's what happens when you choose nearsilence)

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:07:43 PM PDT · 12 of 54
    Colofornian to A CA Guy; All
    Brady probably at most said pressure the balls to the lowest legal inflation.

    The report indicates Brady was pissed after a Thursday night October game...wanted them deflated more...

    The Patriots waited until AFTER the report came out to suspend the two equipment cheaters...as if they were incapable of doing their own investigation & suspending them earlier.

    Shows the Pats didn't want to find out details.

    If these two knukleheads were deflating footballs below what Brady told them, they would have lost their jobs then and there for risking what Brady is used to throwing in practices leading up to the playoffs and games themselves.

    To throw off Brady's calibration based on their own authority is a ludicrous proposition you make.

    No...whatever Brady was tossin' in the Colts game was pretty norm for what he did day in, day out.

    You telling me the refs can’t tell? If so the league has a ref problem.

    I see you don't ask the accompanying Q here: If a wing official opposite the Pats' sideline handled a ball 10 times in that first half...and Brady 30 times...you telling me that Brady couldn't tell? If not, the NFL has a cheater QB problem!

    Brady could have fixed it all while warmin' up on the sidelines for that game...IF it was truly an "issue" for him...which it wasn't...

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 12:00:04 PM PDT · 9 of 54
    Colofornian to monkapotamus; All
    Today Wells stated that he offered to go to New Hampshire and interview McNally at any time of day, morning, afternoon, or night, at McNally's convenience. And the Patriots told him, not only are we not going to allow the interview, we aren't even going to tell McNally that you want to interview him.

    Exactly.

    Can you say Patriot admin coverup? Patriot owner coverup?

    (Cheaters all...unrepentant ones)

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 11:58:33 AM PDT · 8 of 54
    Colofornian to al baby
    Why dosent the NFL officials keep care of the footballs that are used in play ?

    (They will now that you have flagrant unrepentant cheaters afoot)

    It's likely the special teams footballs have already been kept in some neutral location.

  • Patriots done in by their own defiance [Boston columnist raises Deflategate's open questions]

    05/12/2015 11:49:37 AM PDT · 1 of 54
    Colofornian
  • NFL Suspends Tom Brady, Punishes Patriots For "Deflategate" [Slap On The Wrist?]

    05/11/2015 10:43:10 PM PDT · 74 of 97
    Colofornian to Some Fat Guy in L.A.; All
    If the balls were a little under pressure it didn’t make enough difference to worry about.

    Follow-up to last post:

    Comparing Individual Player Statistics when Playing for New England Patriots 2007-->2014 vs Playing for other NFL teams or playing for the Patriots before 2007

    Left side: NE PLAYER: 07-14 Right side: NON-NE PLAYER + NE PLAYERS PRE-2007
    NAME RECEPTIONS RUSHES TOUCHES 'RELEVANT' FUMBLES* 'RELEVANT' FUMBLES PER TOUCH RECEPTIONS RUSHES TOUCHES 'RELEVANT' FUMBLES 'RELEVANT' FUMBLES PER TOUCH
    Wes Welker 741 21 762 6 relevant (other 6 on special teams) 1 per 127 237 1 238 0 relevant (all 13 on special teams) Less than 1 per 238
    Laurence Maroney 45 644 689 5 1 per 138 5 67 72 3 1 per 24
    BenJarvus Green-Ellis 31 557 588 0 Less than 1 per 588 28 517 545 5 1 per 109
    Kevin Faulk 181 252 433 1 relevant (1 special team) 1 per 433 301 700 1001 20 relevant (4 special teams) 1 per 50
    Danny Woodhead 104 285 389 3 1 per 130 160 95 255 2 1 per 128
    Sammy Morris 52 335 387 3 relevant (1 special team) 1 per 129 117 402 519 8 1 per 65
    LaGarrette Blount 6 275 281 3 1 per 94 27 491 518 All 10 relevant 1 per 52
    Randy Moss 271 3 274 All 5 relevant 1 per 55 765 23 788 8 relevant by comparison (3 special teams) 1 per 98
    Deion Branch 130 0 63 0 Less than 1 per 63 452 11 463 1 relevant (2 special teams by comparison) 1 per 463
    Fred Taylor 4 108 112 1 1 per 112 293 2555 2848 All 26 relevant by comparison 1 per 110
    Danny Amendola 90 2 92 0 relevant (1 special team) Less than 1 per 92 196 12 208 5 relevant by comparison (5 special teams) 1 per 42
    Ben Watson 91 1 92 2 1 per 46 210 1 211 6 1 per 35
    Brandon Lloyd 86 0 86 0 Less than 1 per 86 325 1 326 4 1 per 82
    Brandon Lafell 83 2 85 1 1 per 85 171 7 178 2 1 per 89
    Lamont Jordan 0 80 80 1 1 per 80 163 856 1019 7 relevant (1 special team) 1 per 146
    Jabar Gaffney 78 0 78 0 Less than 1 per 78 394 9 403 3 relevant (1 special team) 1 per 134
    Heath Evans 8 48 56 0 less than 1 per 56 59 121 180 3 1 per 60
    Donte Stallworth 55 1 56 0 Less than 1 per 56 280 20 300 3 relevant (2 special teams) 1 per 100
    Brandon Tate 24 6 30 1 1 per 30 31 4 35 0 relevant (11 special teams by comparison) Less than 1 per 35
    TOTALS 2080 2620 4700 32 1 in 145 4214 5993 10107 116 1 in 87
    8 Players' collective totals who had 274+ touches for Patriots 1431 2372 3803 20 1 per 190 Non-NE or Early NE 1640 2296 56 1 per 70
    Note: Relevant' Fumbles Defined: Fumbles committed while rushing the ball or after reception – not special teams' fumbles.

    Shenanigan naysaying

    Yet despite an NFL-on-the-record fine for a certain Bostonian coach's reputation for shelling out shenanigans ensued by a current NFL-paid attorney investigating the whole football shakedown, many naysayers still doubt these knomes actually exist beyond the legion of urban legends.

    So, for certain NFL attorneys who may want to delve into local Boston lore, what pot o' gold nuggets of evidence seems to suggest shenanigans on the loose going back about 8 years?

    Note: before assessing chart below, it might be of help to review Warren Sharp's original chart on 19 of these players below:

    * Jan. 28, 2015 “update”: New England Patriots Fumble More Often When Playing for Other Teams)
    * See also: January 22, 2015: The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible and...
    * January 23 2015 Slate: Dumb Luck: The New England Patriots’ prevention of fumbles is nearly impossible.

    Pat stats: Considerations Weighing Against/For – Sudden Shameful Shamrock Shenanigans in New England

    Indicators of 'Deflategate' & 'Ballghazi' as Urban Legend

    Red Flags in Pat Stats Suggesting Shenanigans

    1. Warren Sharp's analytics case of embellished fumbles (what was he thinking – or not thinking – anyway?) Sharp treated all fumbles as “equal” & “relevant” research. But, alas, they aren't. Simply put, if a team is accused of doctoring their own footballs, & if special teams use a common pool of balls providing no competitive advantage, then special teams' fumbles are irrelevant & need special segmenting from all analytical charts. This impacted Sharp's charts how? One Sharp chart lists 19 players who were either former Patriots or played elsewhere prior to coming to New England. These 19 lost 124 overall fumbles. The problem is three dozen fumbles occurred during returning a punt or kick. (That's 29% of fumbles in list). 1. The “however” to this is it's an “equal-opportunity” application mistake: On the other side of the ledger – those tracking Pat fumbles 2007-2014 – 9 of 39 fumbles were likewise special teams (23% vs. 29% on other side). In other words: Most of fumbles removed from the balance sheet prove to be “a wash.” All it does is to heighten the number of touches on each comparison side per fumble. It is true -- for sake of only including 'relevant' fumbles as it applies to this case study -- that Sharp's "44 touches per fumble" & "73 touches per fumble is a myth. The actual touches are much higher on both comparative sides. Also, when playoff stats are added to Sharp's charts along with one additional measurement – RB Kevin Faulk – it fleshes out an even a greater “measurement”: The lopsided “touches per fumble” ratio Sharp arrived at – 98 – 67 among those 19 players & 107-53 among the five players with 300+ Patriot touches...grows to 145-87 among 20 players & an astounding 190-70 split among 8 players with 274+ touches (Wes Welker, Laurence Maroney, BenJarvus Green-Ellis, Faulk, Danny Woodhead, Sammy Morris, LeGarrette Blount, & Randy Moss)
    1a. How did (1) above play out? Wes Welker, for example, returned punts/kickoffs for both Pats & other teams: Therefore, half of his Pat fumbles were irrelevant to case study & ALL of his non-Patriot fumbles were likewise irrelevant. Same with Brandon Tate re: his non-Patriot fumbles (all irrelevant). One would think that including Tate's 11 fumbles in only 35 touches would greatly skew the results to work against Sharp's hypothesis. A dozen other fumbles were likewise removed on the non Pats' side: (Amendola, 5; Moss, 3; Stallworth, 2; + Jordan & Gaffney, 1 apiece). 1a. How the above played out on Pat stat side '07-14: Welker returned punts & kicks for the Pats, too: So half of his fumbles were special teams' related. Amendola & Morris also had each had a special teams' fumbles removed. And tho Sharp didn't include Kevin Faulk in his chart because Faulk only played for the Pats, Faulk is perhaps THE most interesting case study, but not for special teams' sake (Faulk had one special teams' fumble removed from his stat total; beyond that, he only fumbled once in his last five seasons with the Pats - & it was a reception, not a rush. By comparison, in the alleged pre-Ballghazi era, Faulk fumbled it 24 times (4 special teams) over eight seasons: 13 rushing, 7 after catches. IoW, he averaged 1 'relevant' fumble every 35 touches thru 2006; suddenly it mushroomed to 1 'relevant' fumble every 433 touches 2007-2011. IoW, Kevin Faulk himself is the face -- the poster boy -- for 'ballghazi shenanigans'!
    2. 'Relevant' fumbles & fumble ratios: When the raw fumbles #s are scrubbed & only 'relevant ones remain, 8 of 19 players Sharp analyzed don't match the “we fumbled more wearing non-Patriot shirts” narrative: Danny Woodhead, Fred Taylor, Brandon Lloyd, Brandon Lafell, Deion Branch & Lamont Jordan all have similar fumble ratio numbers no matter which team they've played for; + Wes Welker, Randy Moss – when properly stripped of those special teams' fumbles – even showed significantly more of a penchant to fumble when playing for the Patriots. 2. Collective stats for 11 Patriots 2007-2014 show only 1 fumble every 472 touches! While some of the Patriot fumble “miserliness” 07-14 are indeed attributable to guys who tend not to fumble often (beyond special teams at least) – Welker, Woodhead, & Laurence Maroney. Yet when the other 15 Rbs & Wide-outs are surveyed, 'twas an “almost impossible” scenario to look @ the stats of 11 of them & realize these 11 combined for almost 1900 touches between them during those 8 seasons, & yet they fumbled only four times: 1889 touches & only four collective fumbles by Green-Ellis, Faulk, Branch, Taylor, Amendola, Lloyd, Lafell, Jordan, Gaffney, Evans, Stallworth – that's only one fumble per 472 touches
    3. A fumble-by-fumble review turns up that the players most responsible for Pat fumbles were quarterbacks! “NFL Fumble Pie” is cut up into 5 pieces: Fumbles by Qbs, Rbs, Receivers, Special teams, & the occasional post-interception fumble. For 1999-2006, Pats Qbs made 45% of fumbles; that was reduced to 33% 2007-2014. Sharp (& others including myself) don't want to include Qbs for analysis purposes because they already tend to have an untucked ball in most play situations. The key point here, though, is between 07-14, Pats Qbs + special teams accounted for over half of all team fumbles, leaving less room to “shenanigize” anything 3. The so-called “flip side” of this argument is actually the same argument: Yes, review the fumbles to see who was actually making them, or rather, no longer coming even close to making them. How is it that the Patriot Rbs averaged less than 3 fumbles per season 2007-2014? How is it than when you include playoff games, the Pats average a rushing fumble by a RB or wide-out about once every six games? How did the Pats go through '07 –19 games including playoffs – without its Rbs managing to fumble the ball on a rushing play? (Kevin Faulk had one fumble – but even that came on pass he caught)
    4. If you're trying to explain why Brady had his sudden 2007 completion % surge, look no further than Randy Moss. Moss had previously had two 100+ reception years; his new presence in '07 accounted for 98 receptions. 4. Indeed, personnel are very important considerations. And it's personnel breakdown charts like the one below – a corrective revision of Warren Sharp's – listing 19 players that makes the 'Ballghazi' case. (Note: added Kevin Faulk as a 20th player because Faulk had over 430 touches post 2006 & that can be readily compared to his 1999-2006 Patriot seasons where he had 700 touches) – that also provides a “face” to this “ghost” of “Ballghazi.”

    Chart Summary: Distinctions between Warren Sharp stats and those below (See Jan. 28, 2015 “update”: New England Patriots Fumble More Often When Playing for Other Teams)

    Fumbles-per-touch analytics
    STATISTICAL BOUNDARIES COLOFORNIAN'S ANALYTICAL BOUNDARIES WARREN SHARP'S ANALYTICAL BOUNDARIES
    Are only 'relevant' fumbles -- non-special teams' fumbles -- included in fumbles per touch comparisons? YES NO (Sharp's are accumulative)
    Are playoff stats included in 'relevant' fumbles by touch comparisons? YES NO (Sharp uses only season stats despite very controversy arising in playoff context)
    Are pre-2007 Patriots stats included in 'relevant fumbles by touch comparisons? YES NO (Sharp didn't include Kevin Faulk as he only played for NE; & he didn't use Deion Branch, Ben Watson & Laurence Maroney pre-2007 Pat stats: Yet these stats are relevant for comparison sake)
  • NFL Suspends Tom Brady, Punishes Patriots For "Deflategate" [Slap On The Wrist?]

    05/11/2015 10:41:36 PM PDT · 73 of 97
    Colofornian to Some Fat Guy in L.A.; All
    If the balls were a little under pressure it didn’t make enough difference to worry about.

    The article I read tonight indicated the NFL cracked down hard here because evidence existed this had been going on before the Colts' game. (Hey, the Colts even wrote to the NFL about it before their game)

    I contend this has been going on since 2007, when Brady's lobbying won teams the right to supply their own footballs.

    'Deflategate'

    How was it 11 of a dozen Patriot footballs came to be deflated below NFL standards by halftime of the Jan. 18 playoff game with the Colts?

    'Ballghazi'

    How was it that the Patriots were your average 1.6 to 1.8-fumble-per-game football team 1999-2006 and by 2007 not a single Patriot running back fumbled on a running play...as in NO rushing fumbles all season long...stretching into the post-season for all three playoff games as well? (And then that type of fumble-free patterns stretched not only three extra games, but eight YEARS!)

    'Pat-Flattened Pigskins?': Leprechauns on the Loose in New England?

    How might a statistical analyst give his “best case” that leprechauns are indeed at large in New England?

    Well, what if I told you that the Patriots' DEFENSE fumbled the ball...

    ...more often in (take your pick which of these following seasons) – 2003, 2002, 2001, 1999 than the Patriots' running backs did rushing the ball in 2007 – even including all three playoff games?

    ...Or their DEFENSE fumbled the ball as often in 2001 as the Patriots' running backs did rushing the ball for the entire 2007 and 2008 seasons combined (35 games including three playoff games)?!

    ...Or their DEFENSE fumbled the ball as much combining regular seasons 1999-2003 as did the Patriots running backs' rushing the ball combining regular seasons 2007-2008 and 2010-2011?

    (Now you know what the job description of a New England leprechaun is every pre-game!)

    Beyond that, just compare the 2006-2007 seasons and broader patterns (either 2000-2014, or 2003-2014)

    Charting a Snapshot of 'Ballghazi's' 'Ghost': A

    Category 2006 NE Season 2007 NE Season
    Overall fumbles 31 (27 regular season) 17 (14 regular season)
    Rushing fumbles by Patriot running backs 7 (19 games, including 3 playoffs) 0 (19 games, including 3 playoffs)
    Fumble rate per game Avg team: 1.5 vs. NE's 1.6 Avg team: 1.6 vs. NE's 0.8 (Less fumbles by half!) Note: Even indoor based teams averaged 1.55 fumbles per game)
    Brady's Completion % 61.8% 68.9%

    Charting a Snapshot of 'Ballghazi's' 'Ghost': B

    Fumbles by Teams Per Game
    2003-2006 NE 2003-2006 Other 31 teams 2007-2014 NE 2007-2014 Other 23 Outdoor teams 2007-2014 Indoor-based teams (8)
    1.46 1.6 0.96 [this is improvement of 1 less fumble every 2 games vs. previous NE teams] 1.46 [this means one more fumble every 2 games than NE] 1.29 [this means one more fumble every 3 games than NE]

    Source for most raw fumbles-per-games stats: NFL Team Fumbles per Game: Per Year 2014 → 2003
  • NFL Suspends Tom Brady, Punishes Patriots For "Deflategate" [Slap On The Wrist?]

    05/11/2015 10:36:00 PM PDT · 72 of 97
    Colofornian to mkleesma; All
    I like some of the posts on a Boston website - If you suspend one, then you suspend all. Win as a team, lose as a team.

    Yeah, I can see it now: Brady wins his appeal, but the two equipment guys, including the one who calls himself "the deflator," don't even get an appeal.

    Let's see how far that Patriot "suspend one--in this case, two -- suspend all" goes.

    Wouldn't go anywhere. Those guys would be tossed under the bus...and you know it.

    So much for rah-rah, sis-boom-bah in Boston!!!!