#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Why would anyone do this?

We already know what happens to air pressure at low temperatures.
If you've been paying attention, not everyone's brain is wired to accept science theory. There is always some real world variable that plays into theoretical predictive results. I'd like to see actual numbers, on cold and hot days. Not so much to absolve Brady and verify what we know, but to see what the actual measurements would be. I'm done with the we got screwed analysis of this fiasco, I'd just like to see some hard numbers on 8 given Sundays.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
If you've been paying attention, not everyone's brain is wired to accept science theory. There is always some real world variable that plays into theoretical predictive results. I'd like to see actual numbers, on cold and hot days. Not so much to absolve Brady and verify what we know, but to see what the actual measurements would be. I'm done with the we got screwed analysis of this fiasco, I'd just like to see some hard numbers on 8 given Sundays.
The NFL took measurements last year and did not release them. That really should tell you all you need to know.

This was never about ball inflation. It was about a perception of a franchise either cheating or pushing the limits to the point where other teams and the league itself were pissed. So once they "caught" the Pats, the course of action was locked in. Everything else is just details and lawyers ...
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Why would anyone do this?

We already know what happens to air pressure at low temperatures. Just look on YouTube. This experiment has been done a million times.

It's baffling to me that this continues to come up in this thread, as if we'd somehow be breaking new ground by doing such an experiment. Surely, Goodell will rescind the suspension when he hears of this!

Maybe when we complete the experiment, we can send the results to Brady to use in his defamation lawsuit against the NFL.
Why the snarky hostility? All I'm saying is that I'm kind of surprised the Globe or the Herald or some other sports reporting outfit didn't do its own in-season "investigation" of how football psi changes in cold and warm weather. Seems to me like an obvious story to do. Instead, everyone assumed the NFL would do the experiment and share the data. Ha.

It'd have been good television for sideline reporters to talk about halftime ball pressure. I'm sure that idea was nixed -- if it ever came up -- because TV sports execs didn't want to embarrass Goodell and the NFL. But the Globe and WBZ or NESN? Why the hell not?

And as PaulinMyrBeach notes, even though most Pats fans are now steeped in the science of it all, it's painfully obvious a ton of people out there are still pretty clueless. Would a journalistic "investigation" change that? For some maybe, but that's not really the point. Would it make any difference to Goodell, the NFL or the courts? Obviously not.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
The snarky hostility is because that suggestion has been made at least 100 times in this very thread over the past 18 months. And it was as pointless an idea the first time it was brought up as it is now.

https://goo.gl/WLHiym
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I agree that the suggestion has been made numerous times before. And I'm not the one who mentioned it here again.

But I can see why the Boston Globe or Barstool Sports or MIT or whomever didn't do it last year - the NFL, after all, promised a comprehensive accounting of football air pressure.

Once the NFL chose to not release it at the end of the season, and, moreover, when they totally lied and said that all they were planning on doing in the first place was "spot checks" instead of what they promised to do, and when they wouldn't release any information..... Well then, NOW I can see some news/sports reporting organization (or university science department) saying, screw that, we are doing this on our own.

Why do it?

1. As a public service to NFL fans who actually care.

2. As a watchdog on the NFL.

3. To expose the outright corruption in the NFL - and yes that's a huge news story even though many of us have observed it for a while now.

4. If you're a Pats' fan, then you get to see your team exonerated. And if by some miracle the numbers did NOT support the Patriots, well then, at least we'd know that the penalty may have been justified, and this whole "woe is us" crap can stop. (Of course, I cannot fathom the latter actually being the case, scientifically, but who knows, right? That's why you actually do the testing.)

5. It would simply be educational.

So yeah nobody has done this yet, in this manner. I think it would be easy to do, and I think it would be important to do, and I think there's gotta be SOMEBODY out there that has scientific credibility (especially if it's like MIT or another college science professor) that would want to take this project on. It it was done in conjunction with other universities around the country, doing this same thing in a dozen other cities, especially cold weather cities, don't you think this would be just awesome?

You have a weekly segment. Post it online. Have it reported in the papers. Before the actual testing, you announce what the IGL predicts given the temperature that day. Carefully track the temperature and even moisture. Then measure at halftime in those conditions. Show it all. See how it lines up with the IGL. At some point there will be a game that comes pretty close to the 2015 AFCCG. When it does, especially if it's a game, say, between Chicago and Green Bay, and the numbers line up with what it looked like in Foxboro that day, then yeah, that would be eye opening for many people.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
BaseballJones, I continue to be interested in this topic. Others here are too. But the underlying story for the overwhelming amount of people is dead. Meaning that all the general public is interested in now is (a) how the Pats perform without Tom and (b) the results of any appeal by the NFLPA. And most people don't really care about (b). Tom's and the Pats' actual guilt or innocence is no longer at issue for most people. The "Cheatriots!!" crowd will totally ignore any new science. So will most people in the middle zone. And the believers in Tom and the Pats are already in their camp.

So if I have a weekly segment, I will devote time to stories that people are actually focused on. Now. I will not focus it on the few people in this thread who remain fascinated by all aspects of DG.

To me, the biggest indicator that any new experiments or demonstrations will garner little interest is how little play the amicus brief filed by the "science professors" got. That showed pretty clearly that the science behind the NFL's conclusions was bullshit. The ideas in that brief did not take hold with many people, even though they were laid out clearly, proposed by academics without ties to the Pats and once again showed that the NFL's basic thesis -- that the Pats messed with balls -- was unsupported. The notion that a new demonstration would have any greater impact is specious, I think.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
BaseballJones, I continue to be interested in this topic. Others here are too. But the underlying story for the overwhelming amount of people is dead. Meaning that all the general public is interested in now is (a) how the Pats perform without Tom and (b) the results of any appeal by the NFLPA. And most people don't really care about (b). Tom's and the Pats' actual guilt or innocence is no longer at issue for most people. The "Cheatriots!!" crowd will totally ignore any new science. So will most people in the middle zone. And the believers in Tom and the Pats are already in their camp.

So if I have a weekly segment, I will devote time to stories that people are actually focused on. Now. I will not focus it on the few people in this thread who remain fascinated by all aspects of DG.

To me, the biggest indicator that any new experiments or demonstrations will garner little interest is how little play the amicus brief filed by the "science professors" got. That showed pretty clearly that the science behind the NFL's conclusions was bullshit. The ideas in that brief did not take hold with many people, even though they were laid out clearly, proposed by academics without ties to the Pats and once again showed that the NFL's basic thesis -- that the Pats messed with balls -- was unsupported. The notion that a new demonstration would have any greater impact is specious, I think.
You might be 100% correct. But I think the reason that MIT or someone didn't do it like I describe is because the NFL said they were gonna do it. Well, now that they did NOT do it, it opens the door for someone to do a pretty comprehensive study on what happens to footballs in different environments. That's different than a quick five minute youtube video.

I guess, as a Pats' fan, I would just love to see this happen, and the NFL to have huge egg on their face. Not that they'd care, of course. And obviously it wouldn't impact Brady's suspension, but I'm talking about legacy, and I'm talking about reputation, and I'm talking about what's RIGHT, dammit!!!
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
Anyone who has been paying even the least bit of attention to the details of this case knows what the outcome of that kind of experiment will be. Most (non-Patriot) fans don't give a shit, and the NFL certainly doesn't. There would not be any egg on anyone's face. If there are morons out there who truly believe this incident in any way should impact Brady's legacy, an experiment like that would not change their minds.

I feel like I am about the biggest Pats fan as there is, and I don't care. Win the fucking Super Bowl again and shove the fucking Lombardi up Goodell's ass as he's handing it to you. That's the only thing that can be done at this point.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
You might be 100% correct. But I think the reason that MIT or someone didn't do it like I describe is because the NFL said they were gonna do it. Well, now that they did NOT do it, it opens the door for someone to do a pretty comprehensive study on what happens to footballs in different environments. That's different than a quick five minute youtube video.

I guess, as a Pats' fan, I would just love to see this happen, and the NFL to have huge egg on their face. Not that they'd care, of course. And obviously it wouldn't impact Brady's suspension, but I'm talking about legacy, and I'm talking about reputation, and I'm talking about what's RIGHT, dammit!!!
It has been done, and no one cares. That's probably why you haven't heard of it. It's even been done by a kid named Goodell.

MIT would not waste their time with stuff like this.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
It has been done, and no one cares. That's probably why you haven't heard of it. It's even been done by a kid named Goodell.

MIT would not waste their time with stuff like this.
I don't know of anyone who has done the systematic, game by game study like we are discussing. I know tons of people have done singular experiments in their home, but that's not the same thing as showing a ball, taking it to the game itself, then taking measurements right when the NFL is supposed to be taking measurements.

Anyway, I'll let it go at this. You guys are almost certainly right - that nobody is going to take this on. But someone should.

Oh well. Win another Lombardi please. And then when Goodell hands it to you, just smile at him.
 
Last edited:

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
The snarky hostility is because that suggestion has been made at least 100 times in this very thread over the past 18 months. And it was as pointless an idea the first time it was brought up as it is now.

https://goo.gl/WLHiym
I've spent more time in the legal thread over the last year than this one, if I missed the 100 posts that suggested exactly what I did (multiple balls, game day weather conditions for 2016, and ITP publishing it) over that period of time, then its on me. Apologies for that.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
You might be 100% correct. But I think the reason that MIT or someone didn't do it like I describe is because the NFL said they were gonna do it. Well, now that they did NOT do it, it opens the door for someone to do a pretty comprehensive study on what happens to footballs in different environments. That's different than a quick five minute youtube video.

I guess, as a Pats' fan, I would just love to see this happen, and the NFL to have huge egg on their face. Not that they'd care, of course. And obviously it wouldn't impact Brady's suspension, but I'm talking about legacy, and I'm talking about reputation, and I'm talking about what's RIGHT, dammit!!!
That's definitely not why no one else conducted a study last season. No one in their right mind believed that the NFL would actually conduct the study, that the "random" selection of games wouldn't be be self-serving, that the study would adhere to best practices, that they would share the results, and if they shared the results that they wouldn't be manipulated or filtered in some way.

The reason no one conducted the study is because, as others have pointed out, the study has been done countless times since DFG started. The additional value of doing the same study in-game is minimal and not worth the effort.

No one at MIT is going to spend 6 months on a study that proves gravity makes things fall.
 
Last edited:

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Had this ever been reported? The bolded sentence is from Gary Myers' article in today's NYDN about the Al-Jazeera case. It had been rumored but never said as matter-of-fact as Myers put it today.

-The AJA 5 could ask Tom Brady if agreeing to be interviewed in Deflategate did him any good. The best Ted Wells’ $5 million investigation could come up with was it was “more probable than not” that Brady was at least “generally aware” of what was going on. Brady was interviewed by Wells but didn’t turn over his cell phone and it was later revealed he destroyed it. He did subsequently turn over all his cell phone records. Goodell would have cut Brady’s suspension down to two games at his appeal hearing last June if he didn’t find out Brady did the same to his phone as Goodell did to the Spygate tapes. But the most telling item that came out of the Deflategate court appearances that eventually led to Brady’s four-game suspension being reinstated came in the first round that Brady won last summer. That’s when an NFL attorney admitted to the judge the league had no concrete evidence to prove Brady took part in deflating the footballs or knew anything about it. Goodell, in effect, had found him guilty in a very compelling game of connect the dots.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-players-al-jazeera-ped-probe-dodge-roger-goodell-article-1.2754183
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Had this ever been reported? The bolded sentence is from Gary Myers' article in today's NYDN about the Al-Jazeera case. It had been rumored but never said as matter-of-fact as Myers put it today.

-The AJA 5 could ask Tom Brady if agreeing to be interviewed in Deflategate did him any good. The best Ted Wells’ $5 million investigation could come up with was it was “more probable than not” that Brady was at least “generally aware” of what was going on. Brady was interviewed by Wells but didn’t turn over his cell phone and it was later revealed he destroyed it. He did subsequently turn over all his cell phone records. Goodell would have cut Brady’s suspension down to two games at his appeal hearing last June if he didn’t find out Brady did the same to his phone as Goodell did to the Spygate tapes. But the most telling item that came out of the Deflategate court appearances that eventually led to Brady’s four-game suspension being reinstated came in the first round that Brady won last summer. That’s when an NFL attorney admitted to the judge the league had no concrete evidence to prove Brady took part in deflating the footballs or knew anything about it. Goodell, in effect, had found him guilty in a very compelling game of connect the dots.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-players-al-jazeera-ped-probe-dodge-roger-goodell-article-1.2754183
Interesting. I pinged Myers on Twitter - who knows if he will respond. But he spent a good amount of time with Goodell for his book Coaching Confidential.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
I thought the reduction in suspension was based on Brady admitting culpability and/or blaming the dorito dinks.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Interesting. I pinged Myers on Twitter - who knows if he will respond. But he spent a good amount of time with Goodell for his book Coaching Confidential.
Me: Is it a fact that Goodell would have cut Brady's suspension to two games if he hadn't destroyed his phone?

Myers: I wrote it. So, it's a fact. Wouldn't have written it if not true. It was not an opinion.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,963
Boston, MA
I see how that works...awesome.

Me: I'm a unicorn

Me: I wrote it, so it's a fact. I wouldn't have written it if it's not true. It is not an opinion
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Myers sure sounds like a gold-plated prick. I WROTE IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE. OK Gary.
It's kind of funny, because it's the sort of thing that couldn't be a fact. It's a hypothetical. Goodell might have told him that's what he would have done, but who knows if he would have found some other pretext for upholding the suspension?

I do think it's interesting that Myers is taking Goodell to task on this, because he's been a defender of Goodell personally in the past. But he also wrote a book about Brady (and Manning) and didn't like how Deflategate was handled.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,089
Honestly, after all this, is anyone relieved that Brady is going to get 4 games instead of something even more ridiculous like 8? Even though this whole ordeal sucked, I feel like we almost got lucky that Goodell stopped at 4 games when it was basically determined that he could do whatever he wanted.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Honestly, after all this, is anyone relieved that Brady is going to get 4 games instead of something even more ridiculous like 8? Even though this whole ordeal sucked, I feel like we almost got lucky that Goodell stopped at 4 games when it was basically determined that he could do whatever he wanted.
What? You think this is the end of it? That Roger is satisfied that he's done to the Pats all he can do?

He's OMNIPOTENT now. Expect all sorts of other violations to be uncovered with "appropriate" penalties assessed.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,726
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Honestly I fully expect Goodell's next public statement to include this:

Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me."
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,089
What? You think this is the end of it? That Roger is satisfied that he's done to the Pats all he can do?

He's OMNIPOTENT now. Expect all sorts of other violations to be uncovered with "appropriate" penalties assessed.
That's 2 separate things though. Yes, I think he's done with respect to DFG penalties and no, don't think he's done with the Pats for something else. But with respect to DFG, he could have gone for more games and won. The initial rumor was 8 games. I'm sure that was actually talked about at the NFL office.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Me: Is it a fact that Goodell would have cut Brady's suspension to two games if he hadn't destroyed his phone?

Myers: I wrote it. So, it's a fact. Wouldn't have written it if not true. It was not an opinion.
BREAKING NEWS: National writer doesn't understand difference between fact and opinion.
 

Stu Nahan

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2003
5,736
It's kind of funny, because it's the sort of thing that couldn't be a fact. It's a hypothetical. Goodell might have told him that's what he would have done, but who knows if he would have found some other pretext for upholding the suspension?

I do think it's interesting that Myers is taking Goodell to task on this, because he's been a defender of Goodell personally in the past. But he also wrote a book about Brady (and Manning) and didn't like how Deflategate was handled.
Myers flatly stated in an interview with Fat Francesa that he believes Brady did nothing. Fatso didn't agree of course. On this topic, Myers is on our side.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Just saying...

Since the NFL started caring about PSI, Aaron Rodgers stats have plummeted:

When deflate gate broke, Aaron Rodgers was one of the few players that spoke out and said that he actually likes to play with a football that is overinflated. No one really cared about that statement, after all, it wasn’t Tom Brady.

“‘I like to push the limit to how much air we can put in the football, even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it,’” Rodgers said.

Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers was never lower than fifth in yards per pass attempt in the NFL in the five seasons between 2010 and 2014. Stat mavens love yards per pass attempt, because it encompasses completion percentage and depth of completion.

Since the start of the 2015 season, Rodgers, at a moribund 6.63 yards per attempt, is 33rd among all NFL passers (minimum 200 pass attempts) according to MMQB.

Here is something even more alarming for Rodgers, Since the start of the 2015 season, his completion percentage went from an impressive 65.8% to an eye opening 60.6%. A decrease in 5.2% may not seem like a lot, but it’s also the difference between the most accurate QB ever statistically (Drew Brees) and #27 (Matthew Stafford) source.
We're all well versed in the dynamics here. Brady liked his balls less inflated, which actually makes it go less distance and provides less accuracy. Rodgers liked for it to be as inflated as possible, making his throws go further and provide more accuracy.

There's obviously a ton of dynamics at play that could contribute to Rodgers' sudden decline. Is there any validity to this?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
Drew Brees completion percentage dropped from 71.2% in 2011 to 63.0% in 2012.

Brady's completion percentage bumped up from 61.8% in 2006 to 68.9% in 2007, then gradually dropped to 60.1% in 2013. Seems like there's a lot of noise in individual completion percentage from season to season; the supporting cast probably has a lot to do with it. After Edelman, the 2013 Pats had Edelman, a hobbled Amendola, half a season of Gronkowski, and the Dobson/Thompkins twins catching Brady's passes. And I'd rather not remember the cast of clowns catching his passes in 2006.

Of course, Brady is on track to break his career high in completion percentage this season. :)
 
Last edited:

Blue Monkey

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 23, 2006
5,353
Reading
Just saying...
There's obviously a ton of dynamics at play that could contribute to Rodgers' sudden decline. Is there any validity to this?
Highly unlikely... Bear in mind that Rodgers played the entirety of 2015 without his leading receiver in Jordy Nelson. Something else is going on but it's not the PSI levels in the balls. If we want to acknowledge that Rodgers stats have dropped as a result of the air pressure in the footballs we have to admit that the Patriots gained an advantage by playing the 2014 AFCCG with under inflated footballs.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
Or another hypothesis is that the Patriots were doing nothing nefarious while the Packers (admittedly) were pushing through balls with higher PSI.

It's fun to point and laugh but it's more likely that when not provided with a very good cast of receivers, Aaron Rodgers does not look like the statistically most successful QB ever.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
This is like the fumble stat for the Patriots, which means that 4 out of 5 ESPN analysts will find it very suspicious indeed.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,425
Between Nelson's injury, Cobb's ineffectiveness and Lacey's girth, I think it's more likely that the Packers key skill players beyond Rodgers just suck now.
Have you watched Rogers?

He's been missing ALOT of WR's. WR's he used to hit in stride - giving them a chance to catch and run - he's now throwing behind. Cobb averaged 6+ YAC/reception 2 seasons ago. He's averaging less than 5 in the last 2 seasons combined. He doesn't just have bad receivers, he's missing open guys, too.
 

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
TB either did nothing wrong or might have preferred a slightly softer ball due to personal comfort and isn't having trouble throwing a harder ball. Maybe that's because he typically tries to have good form on his throws.

Caveat: I haven't watched the Packers much so this is more of a theory than something I've directly observed.

One of the things that Rodgers has always done successfully is throwing from a bad platform (yes, I listen to Jaws on Mike and Mike) and using his incredible arm talent to offset that. It's entirely conceivable that with age and /or possibly with a ball that doesn't react the same to the pressure that he typically puts on the ball that he simply can't do the same things he's always done. How much of it is age related decline (ball pressure?? seems not too likely), lesser options, worse protection, no running game? How can anyone really know for sure?
 

Quintanariffic

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2002
5,141
The City of Studios
Have you watched Rogers?

He's been missing ALOT of WR's. WR's he used to hit in stride - giving them a chance to catch and run - he's now throwing behind. Cobb averaged 6+ YAC/reception 2 seasons ago. He's averaging less than 5 in the last 2 seasons combined. He doesn't just have bad receivers, he's missing open guys, too.
I think it's likely a combination of factors, one small piece of which might be the ball pressure, but likely outweighed by several others that we've pointed to and I'm sure others that we haven't.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Have you watched Rogers?

He's been missing ALOT of WR's. WR's he used to hit in stride - giving them a chance to catch and run - he's now throwing behind. Cobb averaged 6+ YAC/reception 2 seasons ago. He's averaging less than 5 in the last 2 seasons combined. He doesn't just have bad receivers, he's missing open guys, too.
He's off for whatever reason. That reason isn't the PSI of footballs. I think its a combination of bad line, bad scheme, middling supporting cast, and maybe losing some athleticism and not being able to overcome some fundamental issues like he used to.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
Highly unlikely... Bear in mind that Rodgers played the entirety of 2015 without his leading receiver in Jordy Nelson. Something else is going on but it's not the PSI levels in the balls. If we want to acknowledge that Rodgers stats have dropped as a result of the air pressure in the footballs we have to admit that the Patriots gained an advantage by playing the 2014 AFCCG with under inflated footballs.
Nothing personal, but between your vicious gamethread sabotage of the 2016 Boston Red Sox and this, you're rapidly becoming my least favorite poster.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
He's off for whatever reason. That reason isn't the PSI of footballs. I think its a combination of bad line, bad scheme, middling supporting cast, and maybe losing some athleticism and not being able to overcome some fundamental issues like he used to.
Wait, now we are giving credence to the Jerome Bettie and Mark Brunel types that excoriated Brady because of fractions of a psi giving an advantage? Jesus guys, come on.
Seriously. No, there's no validity to this. JFC.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,016
Oregon
Nothing personal, but between your vicious gamethread sabotage of the 2016 Boston Red Sox and this, you're rapidly becoming my least favorite poster.
Why are you always late to the party?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I'm still convinced the following conversation happened at one point in the official's locker room prior to the infamous Jets/Patriots game that was mentioned in the Deflator's texts:

O1: "Hey, look at this, I just measured the balls we got from Jastremski. Looks like they're at 11.5psi."

O2: "Yeah, this happens all the time with the Pats; Brady likes them a bit on the soft side, although they're usually a bit closer than that.".

O1: "Should we top them off?"

O3: "Let me tell you a story when I did a game up in Green Bay. As you know, Rodgers likes them a bit on the hard side. Well, one day, they came in at like 15 and 16!! We were all like, WTF? So we decided to have some fun; we let the air out until they were like at 11. Boy, was he some pissed!!"

O4: "Oh, that's hilarious. I'm so sick of these pretty boy QB's hassling us over everything. Hey, I have an idea: let's pump these up until they're like 16 or something."

O2: "Oh, man, Brady will be pissed. He'll be all over his ball boys about that. Yeah, let's do it".

O1: "OK, someone hand me that pump over there."
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
He's off for whatever reason. That reason isn't the PSI of footballs. I think its a combination of bad line, bad scheme, middling supporting cast, and maybe losing some athleticism and not being able to overcome some fundamental issues like he used to.
Green Bay's line is considered excellent. Brandon Thorn, ITP's OL guru, considers it the second-best in football.

Keep your eye out for @mascho 's take on this for ITP - I haven't read it yet (should come out tomorrow) but I'm sure it will be excellent.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The Packers games I've watched this year, he's had significant time - but he looks confused, and isn't accurate at all. He's missing wide open guys on a pretty regular basis, and making weird, off balance throws when he's got a clear pocket and plenty of time.

The one thing I've seen that wouldn't point to Rodgers himself being the problem is I've seen a ton of terribly designed plays run - things like 3 receivers ending up in basically the same area at the end of their routes, or one receiver running a route that clears a defender off the TE, but another receiver running a route that brings a different defender over the TE.