Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Lombardi and others....FIRED

Patriots are a cheater organization. They deserve the entire team hurt for 10 years.

They could forfeit for 10 years, take all the losses, 160 of them, and Brady would still have a better winning percentage than Stafford has now.
 
Wow, in their careers Brady has less regular season losses than Stafford does as the starter.
 
Brady has had a top 10 defense 13 out of his 15 years starting. And they cheat with fumbles and have no fumbles lost almost since 2009. Plus spy gate.

Cheaters do win.
 
Yeah, cheat with fumbles?? What the frick does that mean?

He's insinuating that the deflated balls are the reason for the Pats very low fumble ratio.

He's also dead wrong in saying they have no fumbles lost. The Pats do have fumbles, but at a clip about 1/10th that of other teams.

Every time a guy fumbles, Belichick shows him where the bench is. He's a zero tolerance guy for fumbles. Which is probably why his players hold on for dear life, and explains their fumble rate a lot better than a deflated football.
 
By the way, I know we have a few math nerds on the site. This may be an interesting read for you guys concerning the Pats fumble ratio.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/why-those-statistics-about-the-patriots-fumbles-are-mos-1681805710

I won't even pretend to understand it. Math is not my thing, nor will it ever be. I hate math. Fractions are not my friends and my teachers lied to me about algebra saving my life.

However, I did understand enough to know the articles proclaiming the Pats ratio had an odds of occurring of something like 1 in 16,233 (I think) were based on plays per fumble, not fumbles per play which changes the math entirely, and moves some decimal places, carries the two, and divides by the square root of Brady's shoe size or some shit.

When using the correct formula of Plays per Fumble, the number is like 1 in 267 odds against it them playing a season without losing a fumble, which is not even remotely impossible.

And when you consider they still fumbled, but managed to recovery the few balls they DID fumble, it's even more reasonable.

Basically the assumption that they fumbled at an impossible rate due to deflated balls is just outright stupid.
 
Back
Top