[News] Ravens Statement On 'Tipping Off' Colts About Deflategate

[rmcjacket23]

I just love how we're supposedly the bad guys for catching them cheating.

What on earth kind of world are they living in up there?

And/or lying about it.

 

If we tipped them off, while there's nothing really "wrong" with it, some of the public would perceive that as sort of "sour grapes" on part.

 

If we tipped them off and then lied about it (what we are being accused of now and also sort of difficult to argue with at this point), then we (the fanbase, mostly) would be guilty of being hypocrites. After all, we aren't really bashing Brady so much for deflating footballs... we are bashing him for continously lying about it.

Edited August 5, 2015 by rmcjacket23

[boldtown]

interesting day. many media outlets are implying that the ravens should be chastised for them leaking info. god forbid, the patriots should be held to the same standards as the rest of the nfl teams. funny how many people love tom brady. or maybe, it's more they feel their lives are empty and tom's life is what they desire. this theory seems evident among yahoo writers.

Edited August 5, 2015 by boldtown

[RavensBaltimore]

Makes me wonder now if the Cundiff 2011 season famous fg attempt was with a deflated or otherwise altered ball by the 'New England Cheaters'. I've always been suspect of that condition/ball fg attempt. I've looked at it over and over and there's something wrong. And I don't believe 'the NE Cheaters' just started cheating last season. In fact we all know better.

The Patriots obviously have been cheating since well before last season, and this data proves that anyone who thinks that deflating the football did not give them a significant advantage is wrong.

 

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

[Moderator 3]

And/or lying about it.

 

If we tipped them off, while there's nothing really "wrong" with it, some of the public would perceive that as sort of "sour grapes" on part.

 

If we tipped them off and then lied about it (what we are being accused of now and also sort of difficult to argue with at this point), then we (the fanbase, mostly) would be guilty of being hypocrits. After all, we aren't really bashing Brady so much for deflating footballs... we are bashing him for continously lying about it.

Did you read the text? It had nothing to do with game balls. I have no idea how the "evidence" is being constured to we tipped them off about underinflated game balls.

[rmcjacket23]

The Patriots obviously have been cheating since well before last season, and this data proves that anyone who thinks that deflating the football did not give them a significant advantage is wrong.

 

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007

Yes, we've beat this "they never fumble" concept to death over the past year or more. There's also no shortage of analysis that refutes this analysis and draws a completely different conclusion than the lack of fumbling being caused by ball deflation.

[RavensBaltimore]

And/or lying about it.

 

If we tipped them off, while there's nothing really "wrong" with it, some of the public would perceive that as sort of "sour grapes" on part.

 

If we tipped them off and then lied about it (what we are being accused of now and also sort of difficult to argue with at this point), then we (the fanbase, mostly) would be guilty of being hypocrits. After all, we aren't really bashing Brady so much for deflating footballs... we are bashing him for continously lying about it.

You have warped logic beyond recognition on this crusade that you're on to defend the Patriots. We are bashing Brady for cheating and compromising the integrity of the game, which the Ravens didn't do. There's a huge difference between lying to cover up a blatant violation of the rules, that can compromise the outcome of the game(what Brady did), and a lie that does nothing but protect PR(what the Ravens are being accused of). Teams tell "PR lies" all the time. It's no big deal. Cheating and lying about it is a big deal.

[The Mom Gene]

Yes, we've beat this "they never fumble" concept to death over the past year or more. There's also no shortage of analysis that refutes this analysis and draws a completely different conclusion than the lack of fumbling being caused by ball deflation.

Just one question...  How often have you seen Justin Tucker not able to reach the end zone on kickoffs?  Just sayin'.

[rmcjacket23]

Did you read the text? It had nothing to do with game balls. I have no idea how the "evidence" is being constured to we tipped them off about underinflated game balls.

I read the email, not texts. The email Sean Sullivan from the Colts sent to Ryan Grigson from the Colts regarding this issue, where he says that the Ravens ST coach called Pagano and told him that we weren't happy that the Colts were substituting out our kicking balls for new one's.

 

Direct reference to Tom Brady deflating footballs? No, but then again, I'm not sure why that's a requirement either. Our fanbase has never once been shy on making assumptions about other teams without direct evidence, so why should everybody else not make the assumption here?

 

If you believe that we did make that phone call (which again, isn't really a problem), then you're 100% telling the Colts "we think the Patriots manipulated some of our footballs". So if you're a Colts coach, and you hear that, are you ONLY going to inspect kicking balls, or wouldn't you expect ALL balls, particularly when you already have a perception that the Patriots do this already?

 

If that conversation happened the way Sullivan described it, then yes, we tipped them off. Doesn't matter if we directly said to them "hey guys, check Brady's balls" or not.

[The Mom Gene]

The text does not mention deflated balls whatsoever.

[rmcjacket23]

Just one question...  How often have you seen Justin Tucker not able to reach the end zone on kickoffs?  Just sayin'.

LOL, well, from just a quick Google season... quite frequently as it were, or at least, in 2013 it was quite frequent.

 

 

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-12-05/sports/bal-sports-blitz-justin-tucker-touchbacks-20131205_1_justin-tucker-touchbacks-jerry-rosburg

 

Imagine my surprise when I found out that weather, and in particular cold weather, tends to not make the football go as far when you're kicking it.

[RavensBaltimore]

Yes, we've beat this "they never fumble" concept to death over the past year or more. There's also no shortage of analysis that refutes this analysis and draws a completely different conclusion than the lack of fumbling being caused by ball deflation.

As far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence that refutes this analysis. It's simply a comparison between the fumble rate from Belichick's first 7 years with the Pats(before Brady lobbied for the "bring your own ball rule") to his last 8 years, after they started allowing teams to bring their own balls to all games. The Patriots went from middle of the pack fumblers to the best in the league by far, almost doubling the touch/fumble rate of the next best team, with no transition period(dome teams not included). Those numbers are conclusive. What analysis refutes that? I notice you didn't provide a link or mention anything specific.

[Ravensfolyfe]

Seriously,can we focus on this up coming season...is that all you media people care about?

[rmcjacket23]

As far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence that refutes this analysis. It's simply a comparison between the fumble rate from Belichick's first 7 years with the Pats(before Brady lobbied for the "bring your own ball rule") to his last 8 years, after they started allowing teams to bring their own balls to all games. The Patriots went from middle of the pack fumblers to the best in the league by far, almost doubling the touch/fumble rate of the next best team, with no transition period(dome teams not included). Those numbers are conclusive. What analysis refutes that? I notice you didn't provide a link or mention anything specific.

I'll provide one for you... you can feel free to research the rest. Most of the articles I've found are your tyipcal refutes revolving around the idea that the statistical study basically provides no context for anything.

 

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

[DonnieRaven]

Brady is a cheater. subject over move on

[RRRRRavens]

LOL, well, from just a quick Google season... quite frequently as it were, or at least, in 2013 it was quite frequent.

 

 

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-12-05/sports/bal-sports-blitz-justin-tucker-touchbacks-20131205_1_justin-tucker-touchbacks-jerry-rosburg

 

Imagine my surprise when I found out that weather, and in particular cold weather, tends to not make the football go as far when you're kicking it.

Guess it was just colder on the Ravens side of the field that day, eh Jacket?

[RRRRRavens]

Drones? Jeez, just when I thought I seen it all. Forget Alfred Hitchcock's movie "The Birds", we will be horrified by "The Drones" which keeps getting smaller and smaller and we soon will have tens of thousands of them in the skies around the clock, not gonna be fun to deal with. 

Oh, I dunno bout that.  Might make duck hunting season a little different.  Only thing is I don't know how to cook a drone.

[mearzunkies]

Drones are cool my friend uses it for his roofing business. BUT I would NOT allow one to invade my privacy. Tough thing to regulate.

[RavensBaltimore]

I'll provide one for you... you can feel free to research the rest. Most of the articles I've found are your tyipcal refutes revolving around the idea that the statistical study basically provides no context for anything.

 

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

This article sounded a lot like Aaron Hernandez's defense. They cherry picked individual exaggerations and problems they had with some of the specific data, but they failed to logically refute the overall conclusion. For example, it was a 15 year sample size, but they picked out 1 year where the Vikings fumbled less on the road, then asked "did the Vikings cheat too?". They came up with all kinds of reasons why the Patriots fumble less, but didn't explain why it didn't happen until 2007. They say the odds of the Patriots' fumble turnaround aren't 1 in 16,000, like the original article suggests, but 1 in 300, and that number doesn't even account for the timing of the whole thing, so when you throw in the fact that it happened directly after the rule change, which Brady lobbied for, the odds are obviously much less than 1 in 300, even when using your article's math. 

 

No matter what article you read, and how you manipulate the stats, the fact remains that the Patriots had a sudden, drastic change in fumbles right in the middle of Belichick's 15 years with the team. This change happened directly after Brady successfully lobbied for teams to be able to bring their own footballs to every game. No other team in the league has done that over such a long time span, and the chances of that happening are far less than 1%, and there are no other known variables that could have caused such a drastic change. The article you gave does not refute any of that. So, are you refusing to accept reality, or are you just clinging to that <1% chance that the whole thing was just a collection of giant coincidences that perfectly fit together?

[rmcjacket23]

This article sounded a lot like Aaron Hernandez's defense. They cherry picked individual exaggerations and problems they had with some of the specific data, but they failed to logically refute the overall conclusion. For example, it was a 15 year sample size, but they picked out 1 year where the Vikings fumbled less on the road, then asked "did the Vikings cheat too?". They came up with all kinds of reasons why the Patriots fumble less, but didn't explain why it didn't happen until 2007. They say the odds of the Patriots' fumble turnaround aren't 1 in 16,000, like the original article suggests, but 1 in 300, and that number doesn't even account for the timing of the whole thing, so when you throw in the fact that it happened directly after the rule change, which Brady lobbied for, the odds are obviously much less than 1 in 300, even when using your article's math. 

 

No matter what article you read, and how you manipulate the stats, the fact remains that the Patriots had a sudden, drastic change in fumbles right in the middle of Belichick's 15 years with the team. This change happened directly after Brady successfully lobbied for teams to be able to bring their own footballs to every game. No other team in the league has done that over such a long time span, and the chances of that happening are far less than 1%, and there are no other known variables that could have caused such a drastic change. The article you gave does not refute any of that. So, are you refusing to accept reality, or are you just clinging to that <1% chance that the whole thing was just a collection of giant coincidences that perfectly fit together?

O no, its much more simpler than that. I'm just not a big X-files guy. I think its entirely possible that they didn't fumble because they just simply don't fumble.

 

I'm not a big "start from the conclusion you want and work your way backwards" kind of guy. If their fumbling or lack thereof was as blatantly obvious as people make it out to be NOW (conveniently at the same time we finally find a viable excuse for the lack of fumbling), then I would think it wouldn't take almost a decade to bring it up.

[The Mom Gene]

Because they are finally being looked at.  Imagine that...  the stats change the year after THEY propose providing their own balls.

[RavensFootballFan]

Oh, I dunno bout that.  Might make duck hunting season a little different.  Only thing is I don't know how to cook a drone.

 

That's something one of the Robertsons would say on Duck Dynasty, one of my favorite shows. lol

[Tank 92]

Yes, we've beat this "they never fumble" concept to death over the past year or more. There's also no shortage of analysis that refutes this analysis and draws a completely different conclusion than the lack of fumbling being caused by ball deflation.

 

 

here's an interesting comment that may interest you. it can be found after the linked article.

 

 

Daniel M. Guth · 

Saratoga, California

Did you know the book The Physics of Football was written in 2005 by Dr Gay Timothy. It discusses the game from a scientific perspective.

It clearly states that a football is easier to grasp, throw, carry and catch if deflated slightly, " like the difference of gripping foam rubber vs gripping a bowling ball. Especially in cold weather."

Do you know who actually wrote the forward for the book in 2005.

Bill Belichick.

Explain this New England*. This factoid, if pursued, could mean Belichick knew the benefits of deflation.

2004... Patriots* were caught deflating footballs. Claimed it was a mistake. NFL issued a warning. ( Hadhazy wrote in a letter that the Patriots failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the incident and warned the team could face disciplinary action “if a similar incident occurred in the future because it could be interpreted as a competitive violation,” according to the report.) McNally was the individual caught.

Read more at: http://nesn.com/.../wells-report-patriots-warned-in-2004.../

2005 ... Physics of Football is published. Belichick writes the forward for the book.

2006, Brady* lobbies for the ability to prepare his own footballs.

2015 Brady* and the Pats* are caught deflating footballs and diciplined by the NFL to the largest degree in the history of the sport.

we call this a pattern.

[Raven Bob]

All,

It's very, Very simple. Just go read the Spygate book - Spygate the Untold Story by Brian O'Leary - as it really puts the Patriots under Belicheat into perspective. It is a great read, and brings up things that really need to get answered. If I were an owner, I would be getting with other owners to ask the NFL - what are you doing to ensure there is no taping, no second frequency in the QB helmet, etc.

Read the book. I'm just waiting for the Cheaters to get caught again. Then maybe, just maybe, their coach will get a year off as they did to Sean Payton for something he said he didn't know about either. Just sayin'.

Go read the spygate book; it's worth the money. And, the "system" that Belicheat and Ernie Adams set up (and I believe is still going on) in NE, means you can plug in any QB and he will succeed, provided he can deliver a ball decently. Yet put that QB (or Offensive Coordinator, etc.) on another team, and well...

Sad part, is that the Steelers get to face NE when Brady is out. Just figures doesn't it!

[RiseNconquer]

 

here's an interesting comment that may interest you. it can be found after the linked article.

 

 

Daniel M. Guth · 

Saratoga, California

Did you know the book The Physics of Football was written in 2005 by Dr Gay Timothy. It discusses the game from a scientific perspective.

It clearly states that a football is easier to grasp, throw, carry and catch if deflated slightly, " like the difference of gripping foam rubber vs gripping a bowling ball. Especially in cold weather."

Do you know who actually wrote the forward for the book in 2005.

Bill Belichick.

Explain this New England*. This factoid, if pursued, could mean Belichick knew the benefits of deflation.

2004... Patriots* were caught deflating footballs. Claimed it was a mistake. NFL issued a warning. ( Hadhazy wrote in a letter that the Patriots failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the incident and warned the team could face disciplinary action “if a similar incident occurred in the future because it could be interpreted as a competitive violation,” according to the report.) McNally was the individual caught.

Read more at: http://nesn.com/.../wells-report-patriots-warned-in-2004.../

2005 ... Physics of Football is published. Belichick writes the forward for the book.

2006, Brady* lobbies for the ability to prepare his own footballs.

2015 Brady* and the Pats* are caught deflating footballs and diciplined by the NFL to the largest degree in the history of the sport.

we call this a pattern.

 

Thank you for posting. Great info and informative.

[Tank 92]

LOL!!!!!

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Football-Discover-Bone-Crunching-Awe-Inspiring/dp/0060826347/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438828276&sr=8-1&keywords=The+physics+of+football

[RavensBaltimore]

O no, its much more simpler than that. I'm just not a big X-files guy. I think its entirely possible that they didn't fumble because they just simply don't fumble.

 

I'm not a big "start from the conclusion you want and work your way backwards" kind of guy. If their fumbling or lack thereof was as blatantly obvious as people make it out to be NOW (conveniently at the same time we finally find a viable excuse for the lack of fumbling), then I would think it wouldn't take almost a decade to bring it up.

If they don't fumble because "they just don't fumble" then why did they fumble for Belichick's first 7 years on the team, before they were able to use their own footballs in each game? This has nothing to do with starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards. It's about looking at the evidence and using common sense. The evidence only points to one conclusion, and in order to believe it just happened, you'd have to believe that several extremely improbable coincidences perfectly lined up together. That doesn't sound realistic, especially if you're not an X-Files guy. Again, even in the article defending the Patriots, where they made every assumption and every calculation to benefit them, they still said there was a 1 in 300 chance it would have just happened for no reason, and that doesn't account for the fact that the timing perfectly lined up with Brady's successful proposal of a rule change. It sounds to me like you are ignoring the facts and believing what you want to believe.

 

And what difference does it make how long it took for people to bring it up? It happened. That much is a fact. You're just reaching for more excuses instead of using common sense. You can't negate facts with, "it just happened because it happened".

[rmcjacket23]

If they don't fumble because "they just don't fumble" then why did they fumble for Belichick's first 7 years on the team, before they were able to use their own footballs in each game? This has nothing to do with starting with a conclusion and working your way backwards. It's about looking at the evidence and using common sense. The evidence only points to one conclusion, and in order to believe it just happened, you'd have to believe that several extremely improbable coincidences perfectly lined up together. That doesn't sound realistic, especially if you're not an X-Files guy. Again, even in the article defending the Patriots, where they made every assumption and every calculation to benefit them, they still said there was a 1 in 300 chance it would have just happened for no reason, and that doesn't account for the fact that the timing perfectly lined up with Brady's successful proposal of a rule change. It sounds to me like you are ignoring the facts and believing what you want to believe.

 

And what difference does it make how long it took for people to bring it up? It happened. That much is a fact. You're just reaching for more excuses instead of using common sense. You can't negate facts with, "it just happened because it happened".

Has everything to do with starting with a conclusion, because there's zero chance this is even a discussion.

 

If the Colts don't alert the NFL that the Patriots were allegedly using deflated footballs in the AFC title game, do you think their reduced fumble rate is even a discussion? Of course not. They've had the exact same data available to them for almost a decade now, and I guess "coincidentally" it just now becomes a viable possibility that we have an explanation for something we previously weren't capable of understanding.

 

Be very, very, very careful with the "fact" word, because you're stretching it beyond what it actually is. The Patriots didn't fumble as much during that period... that's a factual statement. It can be supported by evidence.

 

Crossing over into the "they didn't fumble as much BECAUSE they used deflated footballs" is NOT a fact... it can't even be vaguely described as a fact. Its an assumption, or an insinuation, not a fact. Its an attempted explanation for why something factual happened, not a fact itself.

 

Its not really any different than the Deflategate case itself. The league apparently ASSUMED that the Pats have been deflating footballs for a long time, yet that's not actually a fact until you actually find that a football they are using is deflated beyond the legal level, hence why both of these topics are even be discussed.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2015 by MTRavensFan
insult removed

[stampedehero]

The media is really desperate when they have to split hairs on an issue far in the past and  totally non relevent to the commisioners' decision. They can waste more time like televising Cowboys practice for three hours.   

[stampedehero]

Coach Billick mentioned 6 teams.   Who are the other 5?

>My take:

Packers

Seahawks (unfortunately)

Cowboys

Patriots (unfortunately & dislike them the most)  

Steelers (please not them)

 

If the NFL gods want SB 50, they would choose Packers-Pittsburgh. IMO 

[MTRavensFan]

Has everything to do with starting with a conclusion, because there's zero chance this is even a discussion.

 

If the Colts don't alert the NFL that the Patriots were allegedly using deflated footballs in the AFC title game, do you think their reduced fumble rate is even a discussion? Of course not. They've had the exact same data available to them for almost a decade now, and I guess "coincidentally" it just now becomes a viable possibility that we have an explanation for something we previously weren't capable of understanding.

 

Be very, very, very careful with the "fact" word, because you're stretching it beyond what it actually is. The Patriots didn't fumble as much during that period... that's a factual statement. It can be supported by evidence.

 

Crossing over into the "they didn't fumble as much BECAUSE they used deflated footballs" is NOT a fact... it can't even be vaguely described as a fact. Its an assumption, or an insinuation, not a fact. Its an attempted explanation for why something factual happened, not a fact itself.

 

Its not really any different than the Deflategate case itself. The league apparently ASSUMED that the Pats have been deflating footballs for a long time, yet that's not actually a fact until you actually find that a football they are using is deflated beyond the legal level, hence why both of these topics are even be discussed.

As we say in statistics, it's a correlation, not necessarily causation.

 

No denying it's a pretty strong correlation, however. People can determine the meaning of that correlation for themselves.