Yep . . . the only way that you get to “Party like Gronk” on a consistent basis is that you also play like Gronk.
So much for Manziel’s Wunderlic score of 32. I guess there’s more to determining NFL mental success at QB than simply taking this test. Colin Kaepernick also did well on the Wunderlic…
Interesting Ballghazi developments . . . it turns out that the Patriots are the only one of 3 teams in the last 25 years to have not lost a fumble at home and the only cold weather team to have not lost a fumble at home. They run 187 plays per fumble which is WAY more than any other team. The WSJ even has a piece on it now. It could be just excellent coaching but I will be interested to see if that stat holds next week. I’m sure that Brady’s arm and decision making ability won’t be impacted, but the ball security angle could be something to watch - particularly as Seattle makes a point of trying to force take aways.
The Patriots are obsessed with preventing turnovers. The fastest way to get benched is to fumble the football. The running joke in our house during preseason is that whenever a player fumbles, everyone immediately chimes in “he’s cut!!!” You hear it in the press conferences, your hear it from the players.
The cold weather factor is somewhat overblown IMO because there aren’t that many games when the temp gets low enough to really have an impact - maybe one or two per year.
I dug out the original article (which I can’t link to because it is a blog, but if you google “sharp football analysis” you will find it), and it looks like this guy is hung up on the fact that it is not a random fluctuation. Well, of course not!!! This stuff is coachable, and you can deliberately play players less likely to fumble.
One thing he didn’t analyze directly is the percent of fumbles lost. I combined the data for a few teams and the Pats also seem near the bottom in percent of fumbles lost. This goes to situational awareness - playing to the whistle, trailing after plays even after the ball has passed you just in case something happens, etc. Again - coachable. Don’t see how ball pressure could provide an advantage here.
Brady tends to be in the middle to lower end of the qb pack for fumbles, but he also almost never scrambles and doesn’t get sacked very often, which is what leads to qb fumbles IMO. Weird stat for this year - Russel Wilson had 11 fumbles this year, and didn’t lose any of them! OMG What are the odds, start an investigation! 
I haven’t heard any running back say they prefer the balls at one inflation or another, so concluding anything based on that is just speculation.
Teams that win the turnover battle win around 80% of the time. Why isn’t every team as obsessed about preventing turnovers as the Patriots? Seems like poor coaching. Some of the fumble numbers for some teams is just embarrassing.
How about leveling the playing field and let both teams play the Superbowl with absolutely flat balls. No more pressure, temperature, ideal gas laws, and other such nonsense! 
Instead of Katy Perry at half time, they should let Meghan Trainor sing her new song “It’s all about the balls” Oh, wait, that’s not her song, it is Miley’s new tune!
Raw talent gets one just so far. To be really great one has to study, practice, accept coaching/critiquing, work as a team, study and practice some more. Sounds like things one learns in college, LOL.
The rest of the team can’t wing it forever; they need to know if a play is called and they run the route, that the QB is going to remember the play and throw it to him, not the CB on the other team.
For a large chunk of that time, the running back was BenJarvus Green-Ellis. He only fumbled 3 times in his career, all in 2012 with the Bengals in 2 consecutive games with 2 coming the week after his first fumble ever. I looked up every other back they had during the time period, both on wikipedia (the list is outdated) and the team’s history of all running backs. These are fumbles lost:
- Danny Woodhead: 2 fumbles as a rusher in his career, one with NE and one with SD, 2 as a receiver, one with NE and one with SD.
- Stevan Ridley: 8 fumbles as a rusher and 1 as a receiver, all with NE.
- Kevin Faulk: he fumbled a lot early in his career (7 in 1999-2000) but only once after that as a rusher (in 2005). He fumbled as a receiver 1 time in 2007, the only time after 2005.
- Shane Vereen: fumbles 1 time as a rusher, 1 time as a receiver, all with NE.
- LeGarette Blount: 6 fumbles as a rusher in Tampa Bay (3 per 1st 2 years), then 3 with NE in 2013 and 1 with Pitt in 2014. 3 fumbles as a receiver in Tampa, none with NE (also fewer passes caught).
- Laurence Maroney: 5 fumbles as a rusher, 1 as a receiver, all with NE.
- Sammy Morris: fumbled 3 times with Buffalo, 3 times with Miami and 3 times with NE as a rusher. Fumbled 1 time as a receiver with Buffalo, 2 times with Miami.
- Heath Evans: fumbled 2 times with Seattle, 1 time with NE (and none with NO) as a rusher. (Was with NE through 2008.)
- Brandon Bolden: no fumbles (139 total carries; he's mostly special teams).
So during the time that Maroney was the main back, the team fumbled. They replaced him with Green-Ellis who never fumbled and was known for that. The other backs didn’t fumble either, with only Faulk having a history of fumbling at the beginning of his career but only 1 after 2000.
A few other player carried the ball but only a couple of times. Like Patrick Pass.
I’m not going to look at receivers or QB - Brady has fumbled and lost the ball more than once - but the story seems to me that a) the Patriots emphasize ball security over running ability and b) they get and keep players who don’t fumble.
I don’t see how you can analyze raw data without looking at the players. It makes no statistical sense to treat only the aggregates without looking at the underlying integrity of the data. So let’s imagine we replace Green-Ellis with a more talented player. Say go to the top: Adrian Peterson. He has lost 27 fumbles as a rusher and 4 as a receiver. I checked a bunch of top RB’s. Steven Jackson: 18 fumbles as a rusher, 5 as a receiver. Frank Gore: a whopping 31 fumbles as a rusher, 4 as a receiver. Jamaal Charles: 19 and 3. DeMarco Murray: 8 and 4 (in 4 years). Matt Forte: 12 and 6. Marshawn Lynch: 19 and 4. Need I go on? The last “great” RB the Patriots had was Corey Dillon (through 2006). He fumbled like these guys: 27 and 1 (and 7 and 1 with NE). Replaced by Maroney and then by Green-Ellis. That’s the story.
I’d also say that one needs to look at NE’s offensive system: passing and mostly short passing instead of running plays. Running backs are hit by numerous people while receivers are tackled by fewer and in the open field. Patriots receivers fumble, but the mix of plays mean the team fumbles less often. When the Patriots have run, it’s often because they are ahead and do straight forward runs emphasizing ball security.
BTW, it’s snowing here and I have nothing to do.
I absolutely agree that great coaching has a lot to do with it (lack of lost fumbles). Seattle has a running back who doesn’t see a lot of time on the field because he has has ball security issues, so I also get the short leash theory along with great coaching. Belichick said as much in his presser - that he prefers that his guys practice under bad conditions with less than ideal footballs so that game time will be easier. I don’t believe that he was spinning a yarn there and it makes total sense. That doesn’t change the idea that a more favorable football come game time wouldn’t be a desirable thing. I am just wondering if there’s anything to the idea that slightly softer footballs also help with ball security - particularly on the snap and hand off. I am not a statistician but that charts suggest that this team is off the charts compared to other Patriots teams and other Belichick coached Patriots teams.
The questions remains . . . if there is no advantage at all why would they do it? Certainly then, the risk would be way greater than the possible reward.
notrichenough, I would disagree with you on your comment that most QB fumbles are a result of scrambling. I believe most QB fumbles happen when they are in the pocket-- taking too long to throw, getting sacked, having their arm hit, etc. etc. I don’t have any data that supports my opinion, only what I observe when watching games.
The WSJ article that saintfan posted is a very interesting one and, for me, supports speculation of regular usage of an under inflated ball by the Pats. Read the article and decide for yourself.
I read the article and it is the typical kind of number manipulation that passes for analysis these days. Football is played by people and teams choose those people. As I noted above, if you go through the players the Patriots have had at running back, you see they emphasize guys who hold the ball rather than great runners. Some of the numbers surprise me: Frank Gore fumbled 31 times as a rusher (more than Adrian Peterson and he’s thought of as a fumbler), Marshawn Lynch 19 times as a rusher (not that much less than Peterson).
Data analysis totally depends on the quality and meaning of the underlying data. Playing around with the aggregates is useless unless you have a reason for doing that. For example: it looks like the average age of death is increasing but when you look at this by race and income group you see this is directly connected to your race and wealth.
And the Patriots say they tested balls and found the difference is temperature. That when balls are inflated to the minimum and the temperature drops 30 degrees the balls can lose 1 to 2 psi.
[url=<a href=“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2924919/Patriots-release-internal-findings-Deflategate-Bill-Belichick-says-climate-blame-deflated-footballs-team-followed-rules-game-letter.html%5DHere’s%5B/url”>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2924919/Patriots-release-internal-findings-Deflategate-Bill-Belichick-says-climate-blame-deflated-footballs-team-followed-rules-game-letter.html]Here’s[/url] one story.
[url=<a href=“http://www.thephinsider.com/2015/1/24/7885057/deflategate-patriots-press-conference%5DAnother.%5B/url”>http://www.thephinsider.com/2015/1/24/7885057/deflategate-patriots-press-conference]Another.[/url]
Here are some of the remarks (typos not mine):
"Belichick explained that the team’s preparation of the football is through using the ball in practice and breaking in the ball to a way quarterback Tom Brady likes. The balls are then turned over to the referees before the game and the “process is finalized.”
The head coach explained that the process of getting the balls ready, things like rubbings he balls to get the texture to where a quarterback likes, using multiple balls over the past week to conduct the study, showed the balls then rise a pound per square inch in pressure. Belichick said the team delivers the balls to the referees, asking them to put the balls at 12.5 pounds per square inch. He continued, saying the team simulated the conditions of the game, measuring the changes in the balls, which determined the pressure dropped about 1.5 pounds per inch. The team then took the balls back inside, finding the pressure readings moved back up about half a pound, resulting in the balls reading 11.5 pounds pern square inch, which would register one pound under the NFL mandate.
Belichick flatly stated that the Patriots as a team, and all individuals associated with the team, followed the NFL rules 100-percent.
He repeatedly stated that he does not know what the officials did with the balls during their inspection. He also stated that the team has no knowledge of the pressures of the footballs throughout the game, and they are more concerned with the texture of the balls.
Belichick did explain that the team used their quarterbacks in testing the differences of the pressures in the balls, with none of them able to determine the difference between balls with one pound per square inch differences. He said at two pounds, some differences were able to be felt, but that some balls were correctly identified and some were not."
I find the last comment interesting: has anyone in all this hysteria actually tested whether any of this is meaningful? I haven’t seen any work like that.
So when the Patriots beat the Seahawks, you’ll all be left to continue as haters claiming that the Patriots cheated in 2001 and on and on except the truth is they’re simply better year after year.
You might be right. It’s been my observation that many qbs, when they scramble, do not tuck the ball in like a running back. They carry it extended out. And it seems like carrying the ball in such a precarious way would lead to more fumbles. But I don’t have any stats to back that up.
Wilson fumbles 11 times and lost none largely because of the circumstance around his fumbles. This year he took snaps from 4 different centers. Other than the starter, Max Unger, one was the back up right guard who had never played center and 2 were young guys. There were some issues with the snap but those balls are easy to drop on and recover. He also does a lot of zone read and the danger zone is after you put the ball in Lynch’s break basket and are releasing it or pulling it back at the last minute. From memory they had several of those. He doesn’t fumble when he runs upfield (unlike Kaepernick) and doesn’t usually get the blindside hit in the pocket or swipe to the throwing arm that causes a fumble. Unlike Kaepernick, Wilson doesn’t tend to scramble around behind the line of scrimmage waving the ball around in one hand just asking for it to be stripped.
I have no idea when the Patriots are most likely to fumble and won’t venture a guess. I just wanted to point out that given Wilson’s style of play and given that their stating center only played 6 games this year, the recovered fumbles don’t surprise me.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting anything nefarious. It just shows that data without context may not mean much.
Although last year Wilson did have 10 fumbles and lost 5 - a 50% rate. From 50% to zero, that’s a heck of an improvement. 
I would chalk that up to more fumbles on the snap this year which are more easily recovered. So bad center = good fumble recovery stats
Thank gawd Unger is back!
DocT, kind of makes you wonder why no scientists are part of the investigation?
Is it always bizarre like this before the Super Bowl or is this year just special?
So we know the pressure in the Patriots balls dropped about? 1.5 psi from the two hours prior, to the halftime. All I have heard about the Colts balls was that they were in the legal limits. But do we know what the Colts balls were inflated to at the same times? Did they also drop 1.5 psi, meaning that they must have been inflated to at least 14 psi before the game, to stay in legal limits? And why would a team inflate their balls that much, wouldn’t that have been rather high?
It seems meaningful to me to be able to compare the before and after psi’s in both teams balls. If the Colts balls didn’t drop in pressure at all, that definitely points to nefarious action, but if they dropped a commensurate level but were just far more inflated to begin with, then there wasn’t anything going on.