New NFL Top 10 QB Poll

[V DUB]

You fucking guys...i'll gladly admit to being irrational with any argument made against Brady & the Pats. I don't need concrete proof that it aided him. He's an asshole, & obviously at least thought that he's gaining an edge by breaking a rule. Why be so coy & sly, having the ball boy carry out Mission Impossible? That makes him a dick. And anyone that needs to alter equipment, doesn't believe they can get it done without said advantage. If he doesn't believe in own abilities, I sure as hell can't.

[Legacy User]

But there is more than a minimal cost to cheating (when discovered) for the Pats.

Irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained.

You think their subjective belief is that far off?

Irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained.

Also, why put the rules in in the first place?

Probably so all teams would play under the same conditions, so all is fair. But still irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained. No one denies he cheated.

Guys hold on nearly every play, which is also cheating, btw.

Sure, you could create an example where the Pats substantially overstated their cheating advantages and one where the rules policed nothing, but the more likely answer is that the cheating provided more than a small benefit.

It might be likely, but saying it doesn't prove it.

The only poster to school me, in a good way, on this has been Crosby. If the ball is deflated, it is easier to grip. But I wonder how much advantage Brady gained given the extent to which he had the balls deflated.

And I maintain that the ball could be half full and it wouldn't make a difference about Brady's ability to read defenses.

Look, the fucker cheated. I don't deny it. I just don't know how much his cheating really affected how well he does. And you admit you don't either. But having acknowledged that ignorance, we diverge in the judgments we are willing to make.

[jeemie]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Why do addicts keep doing the things they are addicted to to the ruin of themselves?

And the Pats aren't even at that point- the marginal cost of cheating...even factoring in getting caught twice...has also been incredibly low.

But your reasoning is faulty- there are studies out there that show the more success and wealth you have, the more likely you are to cheat and flout the rules.

Those who rely greatly upon societal cooperation tend to stick to society's norms.

Those that do not rely on it as much (or perceive that they do not rely on it as much) tend to flout those norms more often.

You are judging the motives of people by your norms and motivations...these people are not even remotely in the same situation as you that you can claim with confidence that they have the same motivations as you.

Alternatively, perhaps they are successful because they cheat. Or they cheat at the same rate as ordinary people but more chances to cheat pop up? There are a million causal arguments to be made on your study. And you are missing the point in relation to the Pats. Your study suggest wealthier people cheat more often. It doesn't make the argument wealthier people cheat more often for no additional benefit. That is your claim with the Pats.

The idea that NE derives no benefit from cheating but does so anyway is a pretty fantastical claim. The more measured claim is that NE cheats because they benefit from it.

Nowhere do I make the claim the Patriots do not benefit from the cheating.

The claim I make is that the claim some would like to make- that the Patriots' greatness stems wholly or in large part from their cheating (which is essentially premise 1 that Lit referred to, that I have seen many people argue for here)- is an unfounded speculation based on the data we have on hand currently.

[zeke5123]

No one is making the claim all of the Pats' greatness (or Brady's greatness) is derived from cheating. But there is a small margin separating the greatest teams and merely great teams. Ask the 70s Cowboys about that. So, you don't need to think advantage gained by the Pats (or Brady) was very large to believe that they aren't really one of the best.

[zeke5123]

But there is more than a minimal cost to cheating (when discovered) for the Pats.

Irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained.

You think their subjective belief is that far off?

Irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained.

Also, why put the rules in in the first place?

Probably so all teams would play under the same conditions, so all is fair. But still irrelevant to how much advantage Brady actually gained. No one denies he cheated.

Guys hold on nearly every play, which is also cheating, btw.

Sure, you could create an example where the Pats substantially overstated their cheating advantages and one where the rules policed nothing, but the more likely answer is that the cheating provided more than a small benefit.

It might be likely, but saying it doesn't prove it.

Your post is full of nonsense. The point is there is no way of objectively proving the benefit Brady and the Pats gained from cheating. So we are all about probabilities here. The idea that cost against Pats and brady is irreverent is silly. The idea that subjective value is way-off is absurd. The idea the totality of those data points doesn't paint a mosaic where we can comfortably conclude Brady and the Pats generated at least a small but non meaningless benefit from cheating is equally absurd.

Your position basically is asking for the impossible and thereby claiming victory when the impossible is not granted to you.

[Quixotic]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Who cares whether the Patriots benefited from their cheating? They cheated. They cheated consistently. They were dogged in their determination to cheat. They conspired to cheat—conspirators spanning from the owners’ box to the equipment room. They may have gained zero advantage from cheating. Who cares? They cheated. They liked cheating. They have cheating in their DNA. They probably have Cheatos for breakfast. Cheaters, blatant cheaters, consistent cheaters, diabolical, maniacal, neurotic, psychotic cheaters should not, cannot, must not be considered champions…because they thought it would be good to CHEAT WHILE COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Just sayin’. Have a good one, my yinzer pals.

[Jobu]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Who cares whether the Patriots benefited from their cheating? They cheated. They cheated consistently. They were dogged in their determination to cheat. They conspired to cheat—conspirators spanning from the owners’ box to the equipment room. They may have gained zero advantage from cheating. Who cares? They cheated. They liked cheating. They have cheating in their DNA. They probably have Cheatos for breakfast. Cheaters, blatant cheaters, consistent cheaters, diabolical, maniacal, neurotic, psychotic cheaters should not, cannot, must not be considered champions…because they thought it would be good to CHEAT WHILE COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Just sayin’. Have a good one, my yinzer pals.

Excellent! Post Of The Month!!!

[Legacy User]

Your post is full of nonsense. The point is there is no way of objectively proving the benefit Brady and the Pats gained from cheating. So we are all about probabilities here. The idea that cost against Pats and brady is irreverent is silly. The idea that subjective value is way-off is absurd. The idea the totality of those data points doesn't paint a mosaic where we can comfortably conclude Brady and the Pats generated at least a small but non meaningless benefit from cheating is equally absurd.

Your position basically is asking for the impossible and thereby claiming victory when the impossible is not granted to you.

I never claimed victory. This isn't a competition, at least not for me. I claimed that I do not have grounds on which to know how much Brady did or did not benefit. I did not say cost is irrelevant simply, I said cost is irrelevant in regard to how much Brady actually did not or did not benefit. I am just less wiling than you to draw conclusions based on what I do know. Again, you are free to conclude whatever you like.

I see you are now concluding the benefit was "small."

[Legacy User]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Who cares whether the Patriots benefited from their cheating? They cheated. They cheated consistently. They were dogged in their determination to cheat. They conspired to cheat—conspirators spanning from the owners’ box to the equipment room. They may have gained zero advantage from cheating. Who cares? They cheated. They liked cheating. They have cheating in their DNA. They probably have Cheatos for breakfast. Cheaters, blatant cheaters, consistent cheaters, diabolical, maniacal, neurotic, psychotic cheaters should not, cannot, must not be considered champions…because they thought it would be good to CHEAT WHILE COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Just sayin’. Have a good one, my yinzer pals.

Excellent! Post Of The Month!!!

So when one of our guys tries to get away with holding and isn't called, is that cheating? Or is it just that such cheating isn't as bad because unlike ball deflation, everybody tries to do it?

Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion, Quix.

[jeemie]

No one is making the claim all of the Pats' greatness (or Brady's greatness) is derived from cheating. But there is a small margin separating the greatest teams and merely great teams. Ask the 70s Cowboys about that. So, you don't need to think advantage gained by the Pats (or Brady) was very large to believe that they aren't really one of the best.

Actually Zeke- a lot of people here are making that very claim.

I've seen a lot of "Belichick was a mediocre head coach before he came to New England" and "Brady was a sixth round scrawny runt" posts on these boards.

[jeemie]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Bill Gates picked quite a few pockets to get where he is today.

And no one here is admiring Tom Brady.

[zeke5123]

Your post is full of nonsense. The point is there is no way of objectively proving the benefit Brady and the Pats gained from cheating. So we are all about probabilities here. The idea that cost against Pats and brady is irreverent is silly. The idea that subjective value is way-off is absurd. The idea the totality of those data points doesn't paint a mosaic where we can comfortably conclude Brady and the Pats generated at least a small but non meaningless benefit from cheating is equally absurd.

Your position basically is asking for the impossible and thereby claiming victory when the impossible is not granted to you.

I never claimed victory. This isn't a competition, at least not for me. I claimed that I do not have grounds on which to know how much Brady did or did not benefit. I did not say cost is irrelevant simply, I said cost is irrelevant in regard to how much Brady actually did not or did not benefit. I am just less wiling than you to draw conclusions based on what I do know. Again, you are free to conclude whatever you like.

I see you are now concluding the benefit was "small."

Actually, cost is very relevant. If the cost is zero, then there is no penalty for being wrong about estimating the benefit. If there is a high cost, then there is a stronger incentive to be right about our estimate of the benefits.

[jeemie]

The cost hasn't been that high.

Last time it was a fine and the loss of a 1st round pick...but they took away the Pats' low first round pick- the high first round pick they got from Cleveland was left for them to use.

if Brady's suspension gets knocked down to two games, you can say the cost was low this time as welll...and losing draft picks doesn't hurt the Pats as much as other teams given their strategy towards the draft.

[Legacy User]

Actually, cost is very relevant. If the cost is zero, then there is no penalty for being wrong about estimating the benefit. If there is a high cost, then there is a stronger incentive to be right about our estimate of the benefits.

No, it is not relevant at all. You are worrying about the deliberation of the agent of the action: "Getting caught doing action W could cost me X, Y, or Z. Is W worth suffering X, Y, or Z?"

My point is that we cannot know how much competitive advantage Brady did or did not receive from doing what he did.

How much advantage Brady thought he was getting and what he thought the possible sanctions would be for getting caught how much the advantage stacked up against the possible sanctions in his mind have nothing to do with how much competitive advantage he actually gained from what he did.

[zeke5123]

Actually, cost is very relevant. If the cost is zero, then there is no penalty for being wrong about estimating the benefit. If there is a high cost, then there is a stronger incentive to be right about our estimate of the benefits.

No, it is not relevant at all. You are worrying about the deliberation of the agent of the action: "Getting caught doing action W could cost me X, Y, or Z. Is W worth suffering X, Y, or Z?"

My point is that we cannot know how much competitive advantage Brady did or did not receive from doing what he did.

How much advantage Brady thought he was getting and what he thought the possible sanctions would be for getting caught how much the advantage stacked up against the possible sanctions in his mind have nothing to do with how much competitive advantage he actually gained from what he did.

But it is fair to assume there is a decent relationship. Local knowledge and all.

[zeke5123]

The cost hasn't been that high.

Last time it was a fine and the loss of a 1st round pick...but they took away the Pats' low first round pick- the high first round pick they got from Cleveland was left for them to use.

if Brady's suspension gets knocked down to two games, you can say the cost was low this time as welll...and losing draft picks doesn't hurt the Pats as much as other teams given their strategy towards the draft.

Reputational harm is a real thing.

First round picks have real value.

[jeemie]

The cost hasn't been that high.

Last time it was a fine and the loss of a 1st round pick...but they took away the Pats' low first round pick- the high first round pick they got from Cleveland was left for them to use.

if Brady's suspension gets knocked down to two games, you can say the cost was low this time as welll...and losing draft picks doesn't hurt the Pats as much as other teams given their strategy towards the draft.

Reputational harm is a real thing.

First round picks have real value.

An organization that is singularly focused on winning and has a Kool-Aid-drinking fan base cares little about reputational harm.

Brady might care, which is why he is fighting so hard.

Pats as a whole? I seriously doubt it..

[Legacy User]

But it is fair to assume there is a decent relationship. Local knowledge and all.

Even so, still does not tell us how much he actually benefitted. At most it tells us how much he thought doing what he did was worth. But these are distinct propositions. I remain sympathetic to TB's post, except that Brady has voluntarily chosen to put his legacy in the shitter as far as public opinion goes. What a boob.

[jeemie]

But it is fair to assume there is a decent relationship. Local knowledge and all.

Even so, still does not tell us how much he actually benefitted. At most it tells us how much he thought doing what he did was worth. But these are distinct propositions. I remain sympathetic to TB's post, except that Brady has voluntarily chosen to put his legacy in the shitter as far as public opinion goes. What a boob.

I think Brady might have actually believed both his superstar status and his organization's "special relationship" with Roger Goodell would shield him from any fallout.

Not sure he expected to be completely thrown under the bus by the Patriots- something that started all the way back at Belichick's Super Bowl press conference, and should have clued the Golden Boy into the fact that his organization would abandon him at the first sign of trouble.

So I think he threw his reputation into the shitter out of sheer arrogance and hubris.

[DP39]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Who cares whether the Patriots benefited from their cheating? They cheated. They cheated consistently. They were dogged in their determination to cheat. They conspired to cheat—conspirators spanning from the owners’ box to the equipment room. They may have gained zero advantage from cheating. Who cares? They cheated. They liked cheating. They have cheating in their DNA. They probably have Cheatos for breakfast. Cheaters, blatant cheaters, consistent cheaters, diabolical, maniacal, neurotic, psychotic cheaters should not, cannot, must not be considered champions…because they thought it would be good to CHEAT WHILE COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Just sayin’. Have a good one, my yinzer pals.

Excellent! Post Of The Month!!!

So when one of our guys tries to get away with holding and isn't called, is that cheating? Or is it just that such cheating isn't as bad because unlike ball deflation, everybody tries to do it?

Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion, Quix.

Shouldn't the Pats cheating be considered different because it was premeditated and put into a well implemented plan. Whereas, holding by most any player is more of a heat of the battle type infraction. Video tapping the other teams signals and using them to game plan and deflating footballs to gain an advantage when no one else is doing it are much different than occasionally grabbing a jersey (something both teams do at times) in the heat of the battle imo.

[Legacy User]

[So when one of our guys tries to get away with holding and isn't called, is that cheating? Or is it just that such cheating isn't as bad because unlike ball deflation, everybody tries to do it?

Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion, Quix.

Shouldn't the Pats cheating be considered different because it was premeditated and put into a well implemented plan. Whereas, holding by most any player is more of a heat of the battle type infraction. Video tapping the other teams signals and using them to game plan and deflating footballs to gain an advantage when no one else is doing it are much different than occasionally grabbing a jersey (something both teams do at times) in the heat of the battle imo.

But are you saying holding is not cheating or that it is cheating, but not premeditated cheating? I think you're right. But heat of battle or not, when a CB mugs and gets a way with it or a guy holds and gets away with it, aren't these instances of breaking the rules and getting away with it?

Admittedly, everybody holds, so there is less advantage.

[zeke5123]

This is like the differnce between statutory law and constitutional law. One goes to policing within a game; the other is about constituing what the game is and the basic playing field.

[zeke5123]

But it is fair to assume there is a decent relationship. Local knowledge and all.

Even so, still does not tell us how much he actually benefitted. At most it tells us how much he thought doing what he did was worth. But these are distinct propositions. I remain sympathetic to TB's post, except that Brady has voluntarily chosen to put his legacy in the shitter as far as public opinion goes. What a boob.

Of course, it could go the other way. Brady might have thought the value was X but it was actually X + Y. Nonetheless, the best estimate in terms of value was... One TOm Brady. Assuming he made a valuation mistake seems spurious. It also seems spurious when the NFL made a decision to inflate balls to a certain PSI. Clearly, they thought it important to regulate PSI levels. Why are we giving a cheater the benefit of the doubt that (a) he was wrong in the right direction about his estimate of the benefit and (b) the NFL was likewise wrong. While both possible, both seem unlikely. All the more so given testimony of other QBs about the benefits of a deflated ball.

[DP39]

[So when one of our guys tries to get away with holding and isn't called, is that cheating? Or is it just that such cheating isn't as bad because unlike ball deflation, everybody tries to do it?

Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion, Quix.

Shouldn't the Pats cheating be considered different because it was premeditated and put into a well implemented plan. Whereas, holding by most any player is more of a heat of the battle type infraction. Video tapping the other teams signals and using them to game plan and deflating footballs to gain an advantage when no one else is doing it are much different than occasionally grabbing a jersey (something both teams do at times) in the heat of the battle imo.

But are you saying holding is not cheating or that it is cheating, but not premeditated cheating? I think you're right. But heat of battle or not, when a CB mugs and gets a way with it or a guy holds and gets away with it, aren't these instances of breaking the rules and getting away with it?

Admittedly, everybody holds, so there is less advantage.

I think most good coaches coach their players to play within the rules while giving them the tools to have a legal advantage over the man across from them. For the most part players do what they are being taught. If they don't, they won't be on the field for long in the NFL. If a coach is teaching illegal holding techniques don't you think he knows his players are going to get called on it most of the time, thus hurting their team? A lot of holding happens when one player moves one way and another the other way. Much of it is incidental, ticky -tac or subjective even to some extent. Of course, some is blatant and hopefully called on the spot by the official.

The big difference is I believe the Pats, as a team under BB (and Ernie Adams), search for calculated ways to cheat/beat the system which they feel aren't as likely to get caught. Whether it be, spying, deflating, jamming radios, semi-illegal formations, constantly pushing the envelope on pick/rub plays, creating walls for gunners as they are knocked out of bounds to impede their return to play....and whatever else they have done that we don't know about. Some like to call it "the American way", I don't, I like to call it what it is, cheating. If you can't/don't see that I guess we just disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Again, it all comes back to smoke and fire.....and NE has the look and feel of Spicolly and his boys roll'n into the Ridgemont High school parking lot imo.

[Legacy User]

NE has the look and feel of Spicolly and his boys roll'n into the Ridgemont High school parking lot imo.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWiYphJUS7Q[/youtube]

[Stosh-67]

We have all heard of the advantages a deflated ball can have for the QB, the RB, TE's, WR's,............in gripping, holding onto, catching, etc, etc.
Hell.......even the center must have an advantage of grabbing a softer ball.
We have seen the stats of RB's and their fumble rate when on the Pats.....and their rate when they played for other terams.

We have seen the fumble charts......with the Pats fumble rate....literally off the charts.

We all should know from our own experience................that when throwing a football around...especially in cold weather....that it can be a bitch catching a more inflated ball....over a softer ball.

The Pats Cheated....and it benifited them greatly. One single fumble / turnover can be the difference in a win or a loss....the difference between home field advantage, the difference between making the playoffs......and the difference between another team making it or not.

I believe Tommy and Pey=Pey lobbied the NFL to change or loosen the football handling rules in 2007?
Its not just throwing preference that was aided...........but holding onto the football as mentioned above.
His cheating benefitted the entire team......
He had others cheat for him..........

In Tom's first 6 season he fumbled the ball 59 times........with (4) seasons of 10+ fumbles...............
Since 2007 the rule change ....and when he started deflating footballs.......... ...........he has played in 8 seasons...............7 full seasons ( minus his one game injured season )...............he has only 37 fumbles...ONLY (1) 10+ fumble season.............. with only one season in which he fumbled more than 6 times.

2007 was also the season the Pats went 16-0
2007 was also his 50 TD season.
2007 was also the first season he completed more than 64% of his passes (almost 69%)
In 2007....he cut his fumbles in half......from 12 in 2006....down to 6.,........cut his fumbles in half again .....down to 3 in 2009 after coming back from injury.......... and then really perfected the toilet deflating time frame......while knocking his fumbles down to 2 ( two) single fumbles in 2012.

Yes the football gods finally caught up to him in 2013...............when he had his only season with more than 6 fumbles...............but I will chaulk that up to Heckle and Jeckyl probably not airing out as much.......as they probably tired of cheap ass Tommy and his lack of gifts...............hence, some of the angry, anti Tom texts that eventually came out.

Anyway..............other than that...............I can not see how their cheating ways really made any difference.

[Stosh-67]

BTW..........

Bradys lobbying and deflating partner Manning..............has even less fumbles than Tommy.........with only has 31 fumbles since 2007........

Bens fumbles since 2007.................69
Rivers ...67
Eli..... 66
Flacco....62....one less season
Romo.....55 ( one less season than the guys above)
Brees....54
Rodgers....51 ( one less season than the guys above)

[Quixotic]

Yeah. But if Bill Gates was discovered to have picked pockets in Harvard Yard for beer money, the fact that his pick-pocketing gains were a drop in the bucket of his overall wealth would be beside the point. The point would be that Bill Gates picked pockets. Therefore, he is less admirable, important, even financially-smart than if he hadn’t picked pockets.

Who cares whether the Patriots benefited from their cheating? They cheated. They cheated consistently. They were dogged in their determination to cheat. They conspired to cheat—conspirators spanning from the owners’ box to the equipment room. They may have gained zero advantage from cheating. Who cares? They cheated. They liked cheating. They have cheating in their DNA. They probably have Cheatos for breakfast. Cheaters, blatant cheaters, consistent cheaters, diabolical, maniacal, neurotic, psychotic cheaters should not, cannot, must not be considered champions…because they thought it would be good to CHEAT WHILE COMPETING FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS.

Just sayin’. Have a good one, my yinzer pals.

Excellent! Post Of The Month!!!

So when one of our guys tries to get away with holding and isn't called, is that cheating? Or is it just that such cheating isn't as bad because unlike ball deflation, everybody tries to do it?

Just throwing it out there for the sake of discussion, Quix.

If one of our guys has the ball boy spray stick’em on the opponent’s jersey so he is easier to hold, while the locker room attendant lets off a stink bomb to distract the refs, so he can hold with impunity…yeah. That’d be cheating on a similar scale. Why, you have some reason to believe that’s happening? Shocking! Shocking, I say.

[BethlehemSteel]

NE has the look and feel of Spicolly and his boys roll'n into the Ridgemont High school parking lot imo.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWiYphJUS7Q[/youtube]

DP and Quix are winnahs

[BethlehemSteel]

BTW..........

Bradys lobbying and deflating partner Manning..............has even less fumbles than Tommy.........with only has 31 fumbles since 2007........

Bens fumbles since 2007.................69
Rivers ...67
Eli..... 66
Flacco....62....one less season
Romo.....55 ( one less season than the guys above)
Brees....54
Rodgers....51 ( one less season than the guys above)

That's why Pappa Johns sent free pizza to the Free Brady Rally.
As mannings pop gun arm weakened over the past several seasons.....be needed the added advantage of a deflated ball.......I'd love to see the barrel tip on that