Vikings Message Board.Com

Fake field goal - brilliant or deceptive? No huddle offense - brilliant, or a tactic that puts the defense at an unfair advantage? Play action - deceptive maneuver or a staple of the game?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

frosted wrote:Fake field goal - brilliant or deceptive? No huddle offense - brilliant, or a tactic that puts the defense at an unfair advantage? Play action - deceptive maneuver or a staple of the game?

Exactly... motion, direct snap to a back, zone blitzing, corner blitzing, dropping a lineman into coverage, throwing a pass to the QB, the flea flicker, the statue of liberty play... NFL history is one long example of teams scheming to deceive each other within the rules.

The Breeze wrote: I'm not sure that example fits this scenario, but I don't consider that cheating as I don't imagine it would be difficult for any pro golfer to enlist the help of spectators in such a situation.

In fact I can't think of another example that fits this one exactly. What the NFL does in terms of allowing teams to furnish their own balls is kind of awkward IMO.
Baseball would be the one sport where you might have a similar possibility, but umpires are constantly checking the state of the balls and eliminating any advantage a pitcher might get.

Actually, in baseball, the umpires touch every ball. They rub them up with this special mud that comes form the Chesapeake Bay. Not even kidding. But there are things that happen that seem wrong. For example, the Colorado Rockies keep their baseballs in a humidore to offset the effects of the ball going farther at high altitude. Both teams use those balls, but it still seems wack to me.

My point about Tiger Woods fits the scenario perfectly. To call a two-ton boulder a "loose impediment" seems far-fetched. Lots of people claimed Tiger was breaking the spirit of the rules, and the PGA was turning a blind eye to its cash cow. But Tiger got a ruling from the rules official, and the rest is history.

The Patriots, as far as I can tell, followed the rules as they are written. They got a ruling, so to speak, by turning in the footballs to the officials. And even if they knew the balls would deflate in the cold, the rule doesn't cover that ... just as the rules of golf don't cover the fact that no normal person would have the advantage of having 10 strong men move the boulder (yes, other tour pros might have those guys, but how about guys on the Web.com tour ... or weekend amateurs).

Tiger Woods took advantage of a rule as written. So did the Patriots. It may seem distasteful, but it's the truth. To me, the legal-illegal substitution rule is more distasteful ... but still legal. How do we correct loopholes in the real-world law? We change the laws. Like I said, I don't think there's one of you who wouldn't take advantage of a legal tax loophole if it would save you money. This is what the Patriots are doing.

One other thing.

Back in the '70s, the Oakland Raiders were renowned for using stickum, a tar-like substance that WRs and DBs put on their hands to help them catch the football. Lester Hayes, a cornerback, was said to smear it over his entire uniform. Everybody used it, but the Raiders took it to the extreme.

The NFL decided this shouldn't be happening, so guess what they did? They changed the rule.

That's what will likely happen here.

Or not.

Maybe the NFL will once again take the side of the quarterback. And more scoring. More otherwise uninterested fans taking an interest in the NFL through the juggernaut that is fantasy football. Maybe they love us arguing about it because it keeps the NFL front and center, putting even more eyes in front of the Super Bowl ads this Sunday.

J. Kapp 11 wrote: Actually, in baseball, the umpires touch every ball. They rub them up with this special mud that comes form the Chesapeake Bay. Not even kidding. But there are things that happen that seem wrong. For example, the Colorado Rockies keep their baseballs in a humidore to offset the effects of the ball going farther at high altitude. Both teams use those balls, but it still seems wack to me.

My point about Tiger Woods fits the scenario perfectly. To call a two-ton boulder a "loose impediment" seems far-fetched. Lots of people claimed Tiger was breaking the spirit of the rules, and the PGA was turning a blind eye to its cash cow. But Tiger got a ruling from the rules official, and the rest is history.

The Patriots, as far as I can tell, followed the rules as they are written. They got a ruling, so to speak, by turning in the footballs to the officials. And even if they knew the balls would deflate in the cold, the rule doesn't cover that ... just as the rules of golf don't cover the fact that no normal person would have the advantage of having 10 strong men move the boulder (yes, other tour pros might have those guys, but how about guys on the Web.com tour ... or weekend amateurs).

Tiger Woods took advantage of a rule as written. So did the Patriots. It may seem distasteful, but it's the truth. To me, the legal-illegal substitution rule is more distasteful ... but still legal. How do we correct loopholes in the real-world law? We change the laws. Like I said, I don't think there's one of you who wouldn't take advantage of a legal tax loophole if it would save you money. This is what the Patriots are doing.

Because both teams use the same ball in baseball what the umpire does to the balls is moot, the Rockies refrigerating balls equally effects both teams. The only way a team has an advantage through the ball is if someone, especially the pitcher doctors it, which the ump is constantly watching for.

I disagree about the Tiger situation being a perfect example because again he didn't preemptively organize a group of people to clear paths for him than no other player could use. I would think if a Bubba Watson or Ernie Els found themselves in a similar situation people from the gallery would help them. If Tiger had a couple of specially doctored balls in his bag that he snuck into play then removed later to hide then we have a better analogy.

I had considered the Tax analogy but it's different because the issue is between to entities competing for a prize. Still most people wouldn't begrudge the guy saving a few hundred on taxes whereas they might get upset with the billionaire saving a $10million in an offshore account.

But Let me back up a point out what my orginal comment about 'intention' indicates.....here is the piece of your quote that find I damming IF TRUE:

J. Kapp 11 wrote:So ... let's say that Tom Brady understands the ideal gas law. That's not far fetched. After all, we all understand it intuitively when we inflate our tires, and Brady is a 15-year veteran who knows his craft. And let's say that Brady KNOWS if he has the equipment manager inflate the balls to exactly 12.5 psi at 75 degrees, they'll end up at 10.6 psi once they've equalized with the outside temperature.

Even if he knew all that AND did it intentionally to gain a competitive advantage ...

First let me add that it would be an unfair competitive advantage because there is a rule in place in hopes of preventing that. The stickum advantage was not unfair because everyone could do it as there was yet to be a rule.

Now here is Belichek's quote:

"At no time was there any intent whatsoever to try to compromise the integrity of the game or to gain an advantage," he said.

If what you suggested happened did happen, and I'm not saying it did, then someone has made a liar out of their head coach and has further cast the team in suspicion. Deservedly so.. if true.

Whether or not it's provable, punishable or if other people would do it is moot to me. The point is the premeditated intention to get around a rule created for the implicit purpose of having a level playing field by finding a loophole in the way the rule is enforced.

The Pats don't need to be caught and punished for people to believe that they have diminished the integrity of the game, in terms of their legacy, in the court of public opinion. It's already happening and BB is well aware, evidently. It's just a matter of whether or not they care. Inflate me to the pressure of being dubious....


Player A takes steroids and cheats on his drug test and gets away with it...while player B unknowingly has a sports drink that triggers a positive result and gets suspended. The first guy intended to cheat and got away with it....a lot of people seem ok with that. It doesn't count if you don't get caught...even NFL coaches.

Adrian Peterson did everything the rules called for regarding his infraction and punishment, yet Goodell in his infinite wisdom is judging AD's intent and finding him still guilty. I seriously doubt he will have the stones or support to do that to the Patriots...not in his best interest regardless of what's good for the game.

You get the last word on this cause I have to pack and hit the road for awhile. I've enjoyed the volley.

See ya'll after the draft

My goodness... there's now an entirely different level to "deflategate":

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-ru ... 58575.html

Somehow, after the past year, it would seem appropriate if Roger Goodell and the NFL ended up in a more embarrassing position over this controversy than the Patriots themselves.

The Breeze wrote:You get the last word on this cause I have to pack and hit the road for awhile. I've enjoyed the volley.

See ya'll after the draft

Aw, you're going away? I hope you're going somehwere fun.

See you after the draft!

I love the bizarre degree to which America is obsessing over this issue:

http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-nye-says- ... -disagree/

Something to think about. If the Patriots have been deflating balls since 2007 one would think that it would show up in Brady's passing. So I went back and looked at his numbers. Now, I am not saying his number are better because of the deflated balls because the Patriots did happen to have a change in WR's in 2007. But look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Did the WR's make that much difference? Again, the Patriots got Welker and Moss in 2007 so that may account for some of this. But does it account for all if it? I don't know. Rodgers has a high TD percentage. But Rodgers has never had the increase in TD percentage and decrease in Interception percentage that Brady had. And these two numbers just happen to have happened for Brady starting in 2007. Brady's int % the first 6 years. 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 And starting in 2007 1.4 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.5. BTW, 2007 is the first year that the teams were allowed to use their own balls for home and away games. A rule that Brady helped bring about. He just instantly got better with new WR's.

Mothman wrote:My goodness... there's now an entirely different level to "deflategate":

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-ru ... 58575.html

Somehow, after the past year, it would seem appropriate if Roger Goodell and the NFL ended up in a more embarrassing position over this controversy than the Patriots themselves.

Holy crap...the plot thickens I had a feeling something was up after watching Belichek's presser. It almost felt like somebody was Belichecking him.

If the league has done this and given them enough rope to hang themselves, it's exactly the type of deception the Pats use. It would feel like just desserts...maybe....but I'm not sure how I feel about the league doing that. I guess if someone is constantly pushing the integrity envelope it creates a more severe reaction.


Yeah, I'm heading out to the high desert for a few months to be reclusive and reflective . I might be able to lurk on my phone but I won't be able to hold a quality conversation with anyone.

Enjoy the superbowl, Jim

Mothman wrote:My goodness... there's now an entirely different level to "deflategate":

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/did-nfl-ru ... 58575.html

Somehow, after the past year, it would seem appropriate if Roger Goodell and the NFL ended up in a more embarrassing position over this controversy than the Patriots themselves.

I thought this tweet was interesting;

When told of suspected cheating by #Pats, #NFL tried to catch them in act rather than reminding them of rules. Is something wrong with that?

That seems like a bizarre take.

So rather than drug testing players, perhaps they'll just remind them of the no PED rules if they suspect them of using?

It's a new day for catching people who break the rules/laws. Cops won't try to catch a thief with stolen property (You know, the proof ... ), instead they'll send them a letter telling them that stealing is against the law.

Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore. The Superbowl lineup isn't changing. Most of the fans don't seem to really care very much. Most of the players don't seem to care very much. The NFL apparently didn't care very much before now (or they'd actually provide the balls).

Still feels sleazy though. 'I always keep a few cards up my sleeves when I play poker, but I didn't need to use them in the hand where I took all your money, so don't sweat it'.

The Breeze wrote:
Holy crap...the plot thickens I had a feeling something was up after watching Belichek's presser. It almost felt like somebody was Belichecking him.

If the league has done this and given them enough rope to hang themselves, it's exactly the type of deception the Pats use. It would feel like just desserts...maybe....but I'm not sure how I feel about the league doing that. I guess if someone is constantly pushing the integrity envelope it creates a more severe reaction.

Perhaps but if, as many are contending, the under-inflated balls make a genuine difference in performance then as that article points out, it would be somewhat mind-boggling if it turned out the NFL essentially, knowingly, allowed NE to use under-inflated footballs for the first half of a championship game before engaging in a halftime "sting".

Yeah, I'm heading out to the high desert for a few months to be reclusive and reflective . I might be able to lurk on my phone but I won't be able to hold a quality conversation with anyone.

You live an interesting life, my friend!

Enjoy the superbowl, Jim

Thanks. Enjoy your trip. I hope it's rewarding.

Cliff wrote: I thought this tweet was interesting;
That seems like a bizarre take.

So rather than drug testing players, perhaps they'll just remind them of the no PED rules if they suspect them of using?

It's a new day for catching people who break the rules/laws. Cops won't try to catch a thief with stolen property (You know, the proof ... ), instead they'll send them a letter telling them that stealing is against the law.

Anyway, it doesn't matter anymore. The Superbowl lineup isn't changing. Most of the fans don't seem to really care very much. Most of the players don't seem to care very much. The NFL apparently didn't care very much before now (or they'd actually provide the balls).

Still feels sleazy though. 'I always keep a few cards up my sleeves when I play poker, but I didn't need to use them in the hand where I took all your money, so don't sweat it'.

I don't know what to think anymore. If it was done intentionally, which seems probable, I agree it's pretty underhanded. However, if the NFL knew about this weeks earlier and wanted to catch NE in the act then it seems more than a little strange that they didn't do it until halftime of the game that determines who represents the AFC in the Super Bowl.

Raptorman wrote:Something to think about. If the Patriots have been deflating balls since 2007 one would think that it would show up in Brady's passing. So I went back and looked at his numbers. Now, I am not saying his number are better because of the deflated balls because the Patriots did happen to have a change in WR's in 2007. But look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Did the WR's make that much difference?

Code: Select all

          Games   Attp   Comp.     Per.    TD's.   TD rate    Int.   Int. Rate
2001-2006   94    3061    1895    61.9%    147       4.8%      78      2.5%
2007-2014  112    4093    2648    64.7%    245       6.0%      65      1.6%   

Again, the Patriots got Welker and Moss in 2007 so that may account for some of this. But does it account for all if it? I don't know. Rodgers has a high TD percentage. But Rodgers has never had the increase in TD percentage and decrease in Interception percentage that Brady had. And these two numbers just happen to have happened for Brady starting in 2007. Brady's int % the first 6 years. 2.9 2.3 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 And starting in 2007 1.4 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.5. BTW, 2007 is the first year that the teams were allowed to use their own balls for home and away games. A rule that Brady helped bring about. He just instantly got better with new WR's.

Well, Welker and Moss were a BIG step up from what he had and there's always the possibility that Brady was maturing as a player. His INT percentage went back to 2.3 in 2009, his next healthy season.

That was the team's second season in Josh McDaniels' offense. Did that make a difference as they gained a better handle on it along with the additional receiving personnel? It's also possible that the improvement reflects the rule change allowing teams to provide their own footballs but doesn't indicate an increase due to using under-inflated footballs (after all, we don't know if that became a common practice for the Patriots and, if so, when it began). Prior to 2007, the home team provided footballs for both teams. Did any other QBs show a similar improvement in their numbers after that rule change?

It looks like the NFL made illegal contact and defensive holding increased points of emphasis beginning in 2007 so that's another potential factor:

Illegal contact and defensive holding will continue to be strictly enforced. After five yards, if a receiver attempts to
evade a defender, the defender cannot make contact that impedes the receiver in any way, as long as the quarterback is
in the pocket with the football. Grabbing the jersey or any other part of a receiver’s uniform is a foul for defensive holding
and will be called. The only time defensive holding will not be called is if the ball is already in the air to another receiver.
When an official sees illegal contact, he will look to the quarterback. If the quarterback is out of the pocket or if the ball is
already in the air to another receiver, illegal contact will not be called.

http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story/09000d ... s-for-2007

Regarding INT %: while under-inflating a football might make it easier to grip, the reduced mass also changes the way it travels through the air and makes it a little harder to throw deep with accuracy, an area in which the Patriots improved once Moss joined the team.

It seems to me there are far too many variables to draw conclusions from those numbers. but it's still an interesting question.