BabyVegas January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I thought the seahawks wore split uniforms last year. Half home and half away. Am I hallucinating that? Link to comment
yourpointis January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I thought the seahawks wore split uniforms last year. Half home and half away. Am I hallucinating that? No you are correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLVIII#mediaviewer/File:Richard_Sherman_and_Pete_Carroll_in_embrace_Super_Bowl_XLVIII.jpg Link to comment
yourpointis January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 How does which team is the "home" team get decided? Also, apparently each team supplies balls to the game. Each team then uses the balls they supplied when they are on offense. So the Pats deflating their balls (hehehehehehehe, I'm 12) would only benefit the Pats, not the Colts. The Colts used their own balls (hehehehehehe). After reading about this, I could see why the story has legs. Link to comment
Rick Kitchen January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Do the referees not notice that the balls are deflated? Link to comment
nowandlater January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 (edited) Here is an interesting stat - since the end of the 2003 season, the starting AFC quarterbacks in the Super Bowl have been Brady, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Flacco, Manning, Brady. And if it weren't for a poorly-defended pass in the AFC championship game, that Flacco would have been swapped out for Manning. So much for parody. Interestingly, Tom Brady played in the Super Bowls of 2002 and 2012, and 2005 and 2015 (assuming he actually plays this year). And no Brady, Manning or Roethlisberger in 2003 and 2013. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AFC QBs in the Super Bowl 2002-present 2002: Tom Brady 2003: Rich Gannon 2004: Tom Brady 2005: Tom Brady 2006: Ben Roethlisberger 2007: Peyton Manning 2008: Tom Brady 2009: Ben Roethlisberger 2010: Peyton Manning 2011: Ben Roethlisberger 2012: Tom Brady 2013: Joe Flacco 2014: Peyton Manning 2015: Tom Brady Edited January 20, 2015 by nowandlater Link to comment
xaxat January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 It is so hard to believe that the Raiders were in the Super Bowl only a little over a decade ago. They feel like they have been a laughingstock forever. Link to comment
mojoween January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Also more useless trivia - this is the first SB that features two Big Ten QB's facing off. Guess 2015 is the year of B1G. I could do the math but not now, but I would be curious to see just how many conferences were represented. There are 98 possibilities but obviously 98 different QB's have not played. Link to comment
Danny Franks January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Here is an interesting stat - since the end of the 2003 season, the starting AFC quarterbacks in the Super Bowl have been Brady, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Roethlisberger, Brady, Flacco, Manning, Brady. And if it weren't for a poorly-defended pass in the AFC championship game, that Flacco would have been swapped out for Manning. So much for parody. But it if weren't for Lee Evans not securing a TD pass properly the year before, then you'd swap Joe Flacco back in for Tom Brady. The AFC has been a very top heavy conference for a number of years now, with the same teams making the playoffs again and again. I think there are signs that might change, over the next year or two, and some new teams might get into the playoffs. But the usual suspects of Patriots and Ravens will be there next year, I'm sure. I honestly think they're the only two teams in the AFC that the NFC teams would have been worried about playing in the Super Bowl. Link to comment
DrSpaceman January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 My hatred for the Pats is so great that its just starting to ruin my love for the NFL. Just my personal problem though The AFC is the lesser conference and not as comptetive because it doesn't have nearly the QB depth that you see in the NFC. Manning has one year left tops, and he is not longer a top 5 or maybe even top 10 QB if he comes back. Brady is great but he is 36/37, I know he states he WANTS to play into his 40s, but unless BB is in fact the devil himself, which could be true, I wouldn't rule it out, that doesn't mean it will happen. AT his age the downfall can be swift and enexpected, look at Manning this year. In a matter of a few months, maybe less, went from a top QB to a guy who looks 50, let alone almost 40. Beyond that.....Luck, Roethlisberger........I guess I put Flacco in their because he knows how to win in the playoffs but I really don't consider him on the same level as Luck and Roethlisberger. Rivers is pretty good but so hot and cold. WHo else? Andy Dalton? Alex Smith? WHen Andy Dalton is the best you can come up with next, its a sad state. Tannehill is OK in Miami actually as well. Carr looks promising in Oakland but is still a ? for the future. Houston, Tenn, Jax, Cleveland, Buffalo, Jets, Broncos after next year.....basically 7 teams, almost half the conference, either now or soon have no answer at QB. Two others, Miami and Oakland, MIGHT have one but still not a guarrantee. Basically if you have a mediocre QB, not even a good one, in the AFC, you are at least in the playoff hunt. Now that can change with the draft, but that is if Mariotta or Winston pan out, neither one of them is any guarrantee, for different reasons Link to comment
MarkHB January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Something I realized a few weeks ago: when Drew Bledsoe was Tom Brady's current age, he had already retired from playing. Also, if anyone's interested, my local paper ran a decent profile piece on Belichick Sunday. Link to comment
mojoween January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Sopince ODB is in it I'll probably watch the stupid Pro Bowl, dammit. I'll probably even watch the draft. Mostly so I can figure out how when Brady lost his spot because of the Super Bowl, Matt Ryan was the next QB up. Link to comment
Constantinople January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 I'm starting to wish that Green Bay had won Aaron Rodgers likes big balls Tom Brady prefers small ones Yes, I am 12. 2 Link to comment
Rick Kitchen January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 Also more useless trivia - this is the first SB that features two Big Ten QB's facing off. Guess 2015 is the year of B1G. I could do the math but not now, but I would be curious to see just how many conferences were represented. There are 98 possibilities but obviously 98 different QB's have not played. OK, I sat down and did the research: These are the conferences represented by starting Super Bowl QBs. Based on what team they played for in their senior year, and based on what conference the school was in in the player's senior year: SEC Big 10 Independent (Notre Dame, Navy, Youngstown State, Pitt) AAWU/Pacific Coast Conference/Pac 8/Pac 10 Missouri Valley Gulf States Conference Big 8 College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin WAC Ohio Valley Southwestern Athletic (not Southwest Conference) ACC Big East Southland Conference Conference USA Mid-American Colonial Athletic Conference Link to comment
Minneapple January 20, 2015 Share January 20, 2015 The ACC can actually take credit for Russell Wilson as well, since he played for North Carolina State for four years. He only played one year at Wisconsin and then was drafted. Link to comment
Rick Kitchen January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 The ACC can actually take credit for Russell Wilson as well, since he played for North Carolina State for four years. He only played one year at Wisconsin and then was drafted. Yeah, but I was only counting the schools they attended their last year. :) Link to comment
mojoween January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 (edited) Tom Brady's yuk yuk chuckles sound ridiculous to me now that more info has come out about his deflated balls. Edited January 21, 2015 by mojoween Link to comment
jcin617 January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I'm still rooting for the Patriots, but my gosh they don't make it easy. Here's my comments on this whole thing: -The balls are inspected and weighed (or are supposed to be) by the refs prior to the game. so what happened there? -Further, the refs handle the balls throughout the game and noticed nothing unusual? -That the balls may have been deflated had nothing to do with the Colts only scoring 7 points. -I'm not sure what the Ravens kickers are yapping about, each team provides their own balls, do they not? What infuriates me as a fan is they don't even need to do stupid stuff like this to win; now instead of being excited for the Super Bowl, this is all I'm going to hear about for two weeks. Argh; I'll reserve final judgement until the final report is out though. Media day is not going to be pretty. 1 Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 At this point, Bill Belichick is effectively Dick Dastardly. He's already winning, but he just cannot stop himself from trying to find extra advantages through despicable means. The only problem is, Belichick rarely suffers the humiliating losses that Dastardly does, as the result of his behaviour. Even with that tactic they used against the Ravens, it's evident. Yes, it was legal, but the way it was executed was against what you might call 'the spirit of the game', and you just got the feeling that Belichick had scoured the rulebook for hours, trying to find one little wrinkle like that, which he could use to his advantage. And when that rule gets amended this offseason, he'll spend more hours looking for another little loophole to exploit. As it is, I guess I'm just grimly amused that the general reaction to this has been a kind of fatalistic good humour. Like fans are saying, 'the Patriots are cheating? Well of course they are, but lets just get on with it anyway.' Just makes me all the sorrier that the Ravens didn't dump Tom Terrific and his deflated balls out of the playoffs when they should have. Link to comment
mojoween January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 The way I see it is the outcome is irrelevant. If they cheated, it's the intent that needs to be regulated and punished. 1 Link to comment
xaxat January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 In Pittsburgh there was some discussion as to whether or not there was possible tampering when LaGarrette Blount walked out on the Steelers and immediately signed with the Patriots. At first I dismissed it, now I'm not so sure. Link to comment
merylinkid January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Yep, Belichek just can't help himself. Remember taping the other teams signals? He told Robert Kraft the help it gave the Patriots was probably minimal at best. Yet he did it anyway. But at least he takes the blame for it. It's all his idea. He doesn't say things like "Oh that guy just went and taped on his own, I had no idea it would be happening." Or "Balls, what balls? that's the equipment managers responsibility." Pete Carroll on the other hand, even this year said "NCAA investigation, yeah I had no idea anything wrong happened.." Either he's lying or he had no idea that his players were taking improper gifts. Which ya know, big problem in the NCAA and an aware coach would be on the look out for it. Or the number of Seahawks busted for PEDs. "Ummm, I have no control over what players do." It's a culture thing. He might not be actively pursuing it like Belichek but he sure condones it or looks the other way to get an edge. Betwee the two, I'll take Belichek. At least his message is take responsibility. Link to comment
Snowprince January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 This is just another reason my cousin the Jet fan refers to the Patriots as the "Evil Empire". As far as deflate-gate goes, if they're found guilty of any rules infractions there should be sanctions. Did it give them a competitive advantage? 45 - 7 pretty much speaks for itself. They could have played with Nerf balls and it wouldn't have made any difference. The Colts just got whupped. 2 Link to comment
Moose135 January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Even with that tactic they used against the Ravens, it's evident. Yes, it was legal, but the way it was executed was against what you might call 'the spirit of the game', and you just got the feeling that Belichick had scoured the rulebook for hours, trying to find one little wrinkle like that, which he could use to his advantage. And when that rule gets amended this offseason, he'll spend more hours looking for another little loophole to exploit. I'm not a Patriots fan - although since my Giants beat them twice in the SB, I hold no ill will towards them. But if it's in the rule book, it's legal, right? I want my team to be smart enough to find things in the rules that the other guys don't that give them an advantage. That's all part of the game - everyone gets the same set of rules, and if one team is able to find something the other guys don't, I say good for them. 5 Link to comment
Ohwell January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Patriots vs. Seahawks. The two nastiest teams in the NFL. I hope they pound each other into the ground. 2 Link to comment
Fukui San January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Of course it won't matter that Aaron Rodgers talked openly about trying to get non-regulation balls into the game, that Brad Johnson paid to have balls altered before his winning Superbowl, and that the proscribed punishment for this ($25,000 minimum fine) is less than NFL's uniform fines ($50,000 minimum fine). Because it's the Patriots and we have the worst commissioner on earth, we'll have a far too large punishment which will somehow not appease anyone's bloodthirst. I'm sure right now Goodell is sitting down with the ball in question, and asking it to its face whether it feels sorry for what it did. 2 Link to comment
Minneapple January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 -Further, the refs handle the balls throughout the game and noticed nothing unusual? Usually it's only the umpires who handle the balls to quickly put them on the line of scrimmage. And if you aren't that familiar with the ball, you probably can't tell that it's underinflated by a couple pounds. Deadspin has had a couple good articles about Ballghazi: http://deadspin.com/report-11-of-12-patriots-supplied-footballs-were-under-1680811735 http://deadspin.com/reports-dqwell-jacksons-int-triggered-deflated-ball-in-1680569440 Media day is not going to be pretty. What are you TALKING about? Media day is going to be the best. I only wish it was this week instead of next. Link to comment
DrSpaceman January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 So the excuse again is "Everybody does it"? Why does the NFL even have these rules?. Spygate, bountygate, deflategate, each time thats the excuse, everyone does it, so it doesn't matter. So why don't they just drop these rules and forget it. Had nothing to do with this game outcome, but the point I think this reinforces is BB is a weasel who will do anything he can, cheating or otherwise, to win a game. He doesn't care about the rules, following the rules, any of that, only cares about not getting caught. The reality fits the perception, this just reinforces it. He probably doesn't need to do most fo these things (I am sure there are things we haven't heard about), they'd still win. But he still does it, and he doesn't care if they are rules or not. 3 Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I'm not a Patriots fan - although since my Giants beat them twice in the SB, I hold no ill will towards them. But if it's in the rule book, it's legal, right? I want my team to be smart enough to find things in the rules that the other guys don't that give them an advantage. That's all part of the game - everyone gets the same set of rules, and if one team is able to find something the other guys don't, I say good for them. The way it was implemented was within the bounds of the rules, but it was done in such a way to attempt to deceive the opposing team as to who was eligible, which was not in the spirit of the rules. Which is why the refs put a stop to it once it was brought to their attention (and why the rule will probably be clarified in the off-season, to stop others from doing it). It's not the reason that the Patriots won, of course. That has to be because Dean Pees decided to give Brady's receivers eight yard cushions when all Brady wanted to do was throw five yard passes. But I think there are contrasting philosophies of 'do everything in your power to win, including finding tiny advantages no one else thinks of' and 'just go out there and play football'. Belichick is firmly in the former camp. And I doubt Goodell will do much of anything, after all the negative publicity and his inability to enforce the punishment on Ray Rice. It'll be a slap on the wrist and a solemn promise from a Pats' PR officer that they'll never do anything so naughty again. Link to comment
Constantinople January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I'm not a Patriots fan - although since my Giants beat them twice in the SB, I hold no ill will towards them. But if it's in the rule book, it's legal, right? I want my team to be smart enough to find things in the rules that the other guys don't that give them an advantage. That's all part of the game - everyone gets the same set of rules, and if one team is able to find something the other guys don't, I say good for them. The way it was implemented was within the bounds of the rules, but it was done in such a way to attempt to deceive the opposing team as to who was eligible, which was not in the spirit of the rules. In the Seahawks-Packers game, the Seahawks lined up for a field goal, and the kicker even pretended to kick the ball. Instead, the holder threw the ball to an eligible lineman for a touchdown. Deception is part of the game. If you try to deceive your opponent while acting within the rules, I don't see how you violate the "spirit of the rules". I'm sure right now Goodell is sitting down with the ball in question, and asking it to its face whether it feels sorry for what it did. He probably is, and he'll probably give the ball a two game suspension. At least until the TMZ airs the second tape. 3 Link to comment
againstthewind January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I'm not a Patriots fan - although since my Giants beat them twice in the SB, I hold no ill will towards them. But if it's in the rule book, it's legal, right? I want my team to be smart enough to find things in the rules that the other guys don't that give them an advantage. That's all part of the game - everyone gets the same set of rules, and if one team is able to find something the other guys don't, I say good for them. I'm with you here. I wish my Redskins were smart enough to do the same. Although I hate the Patriots, they want to fucking win and they're cunning enough to figure out how to do it. Also, they knocked the Ravens out. So yay. I think Pete Carroll is an asshole of an even higher order than Belichick, which is hard to do, and damn I hate Seahawks fans. So go Pats, you cheating bastards youi Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 In the Seahawks-Packers game, the Seahawks lined up for a field goal, and the kicker even pretended to kick the ball. Instead, the holder threw the ball to an eligible lineman for a touchdown. Deception is part of the game. If you try to deceive your opponent while acting within the rules, I don't see how you violate the "spirit of the rules". You're right. 'Deception' is the wrong word. 'Underhanded' is more appropriate. Because what the Patriots were doing is lining up in that formation, and then snapping the ball the moment that the ineligible receiver was called, rather than letting the defense adjust to substitutions like they're supposed to be allowed to. Which is why the Patriots stopped doing it after the Ravens made that point to the referees. Then Vereen turned to Brady on the snap, looking for a pass as though he was an eligible slot receiver. And like I said, it's a rule that will be changed in the summer because, despite being ineligible, he was still available to catch a lateral or backwards pass. That means he can't be ignored, as teams are instructed to do with ineligible receivers (who are always O-linemen, in 99% of plays). So I suppose it's good of Bill to raise that loophole as one to be closed. Not so good of him to underinflate his QB's balls. Link to comment
Ohwell January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 and damn I hate Seahawks fans. So go Pats, you cheating bastards youi If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to choose a team to root for, it would be "that team playing the Seahawks." 2 Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 If someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to choose a team to root for, it would be "that team playing the Seahawks." And see, I'm actually leaning towards the Evil Empire as well, despite every bone in my body telling me it's just wrong and I should be disgusted with myself. Because at least Tom Brady doesn't claim that God sends INTs to make his eventual triumph even greater. *vomit* 1 Link to comment
CaughtOnTape January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I hate the Patriots. I hate Tom Brady. My only extremely far fetched and unlikely hope is that the NFL decides the SuperBowl is a farce and instead puts Tom Brady on display nailed to a fucking cross for 4 hours. 1 Link to comment
MarkHB January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 You're right. 'Deception' is the wrong word. 'Underhanded' is more appropriate. Because what the Patriots were doing is lining up in that formation, and then snapping the ball the moment that the ineligible receiver was called, rather than letting the defense adjust to substitutions like they're supposed to be allowed to. Which is why the Patriots stopped doing it after the Ravens made that point to the referees. Then Vereen turned to Brady on the snap, looking for a pass as though he was an eligible slot receiver. Re that last part, so is it also underhanded, or an impermissible degree of deception, when Brady jumps up and spins around (pretending the ball went sailing over his head) on a direct snap? And like I said, it's a rule that will be changed in the summer because, despite being ineligible, he was still available to catch a lateral or backwards pass. That means he can't be ignored, as teams are instructed to do with ineligible receivers (who are always O-linemen, in 99% of plays). So I suppose it's good of Bill to raise that loophole as one to be closed. Not so good of him to underinflate his QB's balls. I'm far from an expert in the nuances of the rules, but how would he be available to catch a lateral? If he's ineligible - lined up as a tackle - then he can't take handoffs or laterals either, can he? Link to comment
Popples January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I hate the Patriots. I hate Tom Brady. My only extremely far fetched and unlikely hope is that the NFL decides the SuperBowl is a farce and instead puts Tom Brady on display nailed to a fucking cross for 4 hours. I wish I could like this more than once, it is my everything. Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I'm far from an expert in the nuances of the rules, but how would he be available to catch a lateral? If he's ineligible - lined up as a tackle - then he can't take handoffs or laterals either, can he? No, any player on the offensive side of the ball can accept a hand off or lateral/backwards pass. It's just the forward pass that eligibility rules apply to. It might get even more complicated if the ineligible receiver tried to accept a lateral past the LOS, because he might then be considered an ineligible receiver downfield, which would be a penalty. Anyway, that's why I think they'll address that rule. 2 Link to comment
merylinkid January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 The refs checked all the balls before the game. So if they were deflated, they had to be done DURING the game with no one noticing. It is possible that cold weather also contributed to the deflation (pressure physics stuff that makes my head hurt). The way to prove that is it to also check the Colts balls. Of course too late now to do that. Link to comment
Constantinople January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 You're right. 'Deception' is the wrong word. 'Underhanded' is more appropriate. Because what the Patriots were doing is lining up in that formation, and then snapping the ball the moment that the ineligible receiver was called, rather than letting the defense adjust to substitutions like they're supposed to be allowed to. Don't teams sometimes quick snap the ball to catch the defense unawares, to gas the by preventing substitutions and, sometimes, to try to draw a penalty for having too many men on the field? Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 Don't teams sometimes quick snap the ball to catch the defense unawares, to gas the by preventing substitutions and, sometimes, to try to draw a penalty for having too many men on the field? I can't think of a time I've seen teams snap the ball quickly to catch a twelfth man on defense, but yeah, they run up-tempo offenses to limit substitutions. But that means they can't substitute themselves, which wasn't the case in the plays we're talking about. Link to comment
Moose135 January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 I can't think of a time I've seen teams snap the ball quickly to catch a twelfth man on defense... I remember seeing that two or three times in the past couple of weeks. Link to comment
xaxat January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 (edited) The refs checked all the balls before the game. So if they were deflated, they had to be done DURING the game with no one noticing. It is possible that cold weather also contributed to the deflation (pressure physics stuff that makes my head hurt). The way to prove that is it to also check the Colts balls. Of course too late now to do that. League officials checked the balls for both teams. League sources have confirmed that the footballs were properly inspected and approved by referee Walt Anderson 2 hours and 15 minutes before kickoff, before they were returned to each team. ESPN Sports Radio 810 in Kansas City reported that the Patriots' footballs were tested at the half, reinflated at that time when they were found to be low, then put back in play for the second half, and then tested again after the game. The report did not reveal the results of the test following the game. All of the balls the Colts used met standards, according to the report. So someone on the Pats' staff had the uh, cojones, to do it twice during the game. I kind of feel bad for the Pats equipment manager. Even though I really doubt it was his idea, he's probably going to be the fall guy, at the cost of his job. Edited January 21, 2015 by xaxat 1 Link to comment
Fukui San January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 No, any player on the offensive side of the ball can accept a hand off or lateral/backwards pass. It's just the forward pass that eligibility rules apply to. It might get even more complicated if the ineligible receiver tried to accept a lateral past the LOS, because he might then be considered an ineligible receiver downfield, which would be a penalty. Anyway, that's why I think they'll address that rule. If I'm a defensive coach, and the other team wants to throw a backwards pass to someone who has to be lined up on the line of scrimmage at the snap, be my guest. Even uncovered I don't see this as a very good percentage play. 1 Link to comment
Danny Franks January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 (edited) I remember seeing that two or three times in the past couple of weeks. I've seen the ball snapped when there are twelve men on defense, and a flag be thrown. I can't say I've ever seen a QB deliberately snap the ball early because he's seen twelve men on defense. Normally, the QB snaps it when he's ready, because there's no guarantee that a flag will be thrown, even for a rightful penalty. I kind of feel bad for the Pats equipment manager. Even though I really doubt it was his idea, he's probably going to be the fall guy, at the cost of his job. Probably. But I would hope that Belichick gets him another job somewhere, as a thankyou for keeping quiet when the NFL asks who told him to deflate the balls. If I'm a defensive coach, and the other team wants to throw a backwards pass to someone who has to be lined up on the line of scrimmage at the snap, be my guest. Even uncovered I don't see this as a very good percentage play. Why? It's basically a bubble screen. A player like Shane Vereen lives on screen passes. Edited January 21, 2015 by Danny Franks Link to comment
merylinkid January 21, 2015 Share January 21, 2015 It never said the Colts' balls were checked after the game. The Pats met the standard before the game too. There was a question and they were rechecked. It was never stated that the Colts' balls were rechecked. So we don't know if they remained properly inflated throughout the game. Link to comment
Fukui San January 22, 2015 Share January 22, 2015 I've seen the ball snapped when there are twelve men on defense, and a flag be thrown. I can't say I've ever seen a QB deliberately snap the ball early because he's seen twelve men on defense. Normally, the QB snaps it when he's ready, because there's no guarantee that a flag will be thrown, even for a rightful penalty. Why? It's basically a bubble screen. A player like Shane Vereen lives on screen passes. It has to be a backward pass, so Vereen has to move back 5-7 yards to be legal and has no forward momentum. Brady has one fewer lineman to protect him to wait for Vereen to be legal. And if Vereen doesn't make the catch it's a live fumble. So yes, please design throws to an ineligible Vereen. The better idea is to use Vereen as a blocker on a screen like they tried to run against the Colts. LaFell dropped the pass, but it looked like a modest gain at best. While I loved how much it flummoxed the Ravens, it's a gimmick offense that any competent d coordinator should be able to adjust to in ten minutes now that it's been seen. Link to comment
Constantinople January 22, 2015 Share January 22, 2015 I've heard conflicting stories about whether the Patriots' balls were re-inflated during half time, or that they were replaced with substitute balls. Apparently home teams with outdoor stadiums are supposed to have 12 balls in reserve. I don't have any firm citations for any of this. Interesting comment on Slate, though I can't vouch for its scientific accuracy Could the balls have, conveniently, become deflated on their own? Air pressure drops when temperature drops, so it seems theoretically possible that New England could have cannily inflated its balls to the right pressure in a well-heated room, gotten them approved right away, and then let the 50-degree-ish weather in the stadium do its work. (In this scenario, Indianapolis perhaps inflated its own balls outdoors in the cold and thus didn’t see a pressure drop because there was no temperature change.) One seemingly well-informed contributor to this thread of nerdy Michigan football fans asserts that the observed loss in air pressure could have occurred if the Pats inflated their balls at 85 degrees. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/21/ballghazi_faq_patriots_underinflation_scandal_explained.html 1 Link to comment
xaxat January 22, 2015 Share January 22, 2015 One seemingly well-informed contributor to this thread of nerdy Michigan football fans asserts that the observed loss in air pressure could have occurred if the Pats inflated their balls at 85 degrees. That could make for an awesome alibi! Equipment manager: "Well, Mr. Goodell, my office is undergoing renovations. I like a quiet place when I'm inflating the balls and my arthritis was acting up. So I decided to kill two birds with one stone and pumped them up in the player sauna." 4 Link to comment
DrSpaceman January 22, 2015 Share January 22, 2015 Who keeps a room indoors at 85 degrees? And why would one team inflate them indoors and one outdoors? Occams razor, the simplest solution is most likely. They deflated the balls after they were checked. They knew it, they did it purposely because BB is sneaky and will cheat in any way 1 Link to comment
Constantinople January 22, 2015 Share January 22, 2015 Who keeps a room indoors at 85 degrees? And why would one team inflate them indoors and one outdoors? Occams razor, the simplest solution is most likely. They deflated the balls after they were checked. They knew it, they did it purposely because BB is sneaky and will cheat in any way As xaxat noted, it enables the team to truthfully state they didn't let air out of the balls after they were inspected. I agree it's an unlikely scenario, albeit an amusing one given how elaborate it would be (a special ball sauna room). That being said, as the rule has been reported in the media, I don't think it makes a difference. As I understand it, the balls are supposed to be between 12.5 and 13.5 psi at all times, not just when they're inspected before the game. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.