NFL "Teams Behaving Badly" Thread: 2015

[Arles]

Some very interesting analysis of fumbles by Warren Sharp for the Patriots since 2007. Essentially, having a lower pressure football makes ball security a lot easier. So, Warren analyzed fumbles by New England since 2010:

The 2014 Patriots were just the 3rd team in the last 25 years to never have lost a fumble at home! The biggest difference between the Patriots and the other 2 teams who did it was that New England ran between 150 and 200 MORE plays this year than those teams did in the years they had zero home fumbles, making the Patriots stand alone in this unique statistic.

Based on the desire to incorporate full season data (not just home games, as a team theoretically bring “doctored footballs” with them on the road) I performed the following analysis:

I looked at the last 5 years of data (since 2010) and examined TOTAL FUMBLES in all games (as well as fumbles/game) but more importantly, TOTAL OFFENSIVE PLAYS RUN. Thus, we can to determine average PLAYS per FUMBLE, a much more valuable statistic. The results are displayed in the chart below. Keep in mind, this is for all games since 2010, regardless of indoors, outdoors, weather, site, etc. EVERYTHING.

One can CLEARLY SEE the Patriots, visually, are off the chart. There is no other team even close to being near to their rate of 187 offensive plays (passes+rushes+sacks) per fumble. The league average is 105 plays/fumble. Most teams are within 21 plays of that number.

I spoke with a data scientist who I know from work on the NFLproject.com website, and sent him the data. He said:

Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the results that the Patriots have gotten over this period, once in 16,233.77 instances”.

Which in layman’s terms means that this result only being a coincidence, is like winning a raffle where you have a 0.0000616 probability to win. Which in other words, it’s very unlikely that it’s a coincidence.

I actually went back and researched 5 year periods for the entire NFL over the last 25 years. The Patriots ratio of 187 plays to 1 fumble is the BEST of ANY team in the NFL for ANY 5 year span of time over the last 25 years. Not was it just the best, it wasn’t close:

2010-2014 Patriots: 187 plays/fumble
2009-2013 Patriots: 156 plays/fumble
2006-2010 Colts: 156 plays/fumble
2005-2009 Colts: 153 plays/fumble
2007-2011 Patriots: 149 plays/fumble
2008-2012 Patriots: 148 plays/fumble
2010-2014 Texans: 140 plays/fumble
2004-2008 Colts: 139 plays/fumble
2006-2010 Jets: 135 plays/fumble
1999-2003 Chiefs: 134 plays/fumble

There are a few key takeaways. First and foremost, the 187 plays/fumble dwarfs even the rest of the best seasons the last 25 years. Second, the Patriots have been at the top of the NFL since 2007.

Ironically, as my study yesterday showed, the Patriots performance in wet weather home games mysteriously turned ridiculous starting in 2007. In 2006, they went 0-2. From 2007 onward, they went 14-1.

The next obvious question becomes, where were the Patriots in this statistic pre-2007? Take a look:



As you can see, the Patriots won their Super Bowls having a below average rate of fumbles lost given today’s average of 105 plays/game. But in 2007, something happened to propel them to a much better rate (you’ll remember, that just so happened to be the same year they went 16-0 in the regular season). But even looking at these numbers, its clear how insane the 187 number is: they are almost running 100 MORE plays without a single fumble as compared to the 2002-2006 period when they won 2 of their 3 Super Bowls.

Could the Patriots be so good that they just defy the numbers? As my friend theorized: Perhaps they’ve invented a revolutionary in-house way to protect the ball, or perhaps they’ve intentionally stocked their skill positions with players who don’t have a propensity to fumble. Or perhaps still, they call plays which intentionally result in a lower percentage of fumbles. Or maybe its just that they play with deflated footballs on offense. It could be any combination of the above.

But regardless of what, specifically, is causing these numbers, the fact remains: this is an extremely abnormal occurrence and is NOT simply random fluctuation.

[jeff061]

Oh give me a break.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by whomario

I don´t have a dog in this fight, but ...



wait, why exactly ? This is akin to punishing a Running Back individually for an illegal block by his Fullback who thinks he is helping him out best that way, instead of setting the team back some yards. You can punish the team/franchise, but certainly not punish individuals if said individuals are not found guilty of conspiring this thing.

Or is "Presumption of Innocence" not a thing anymore ?

I meant the Patriots should be punished in the same way the Saints were punished even though Payton never was shown to have direct knowledge of bountygate.

If you are the leader of a football team and one of your team members (players, coach, staff...) breaks an NFL rule to get an advantage, that comes back on you. Now, I'm not saying the penalty is that Bill should be suspended a year (I didn't agree with the Payton suspension) - but the league has set the precedent that "not knowing" is not a defense for a head coach in regards to team violations and punishment.

[cartman]

That's an even more rare distribution than the Dan Crawford reffing Mavs playoffs games.

[Arles]

Interesting follow up note to the above article. BenJarvus Green-Ellis went 510 carries with no fumbles in New England. In his two years in Cincinnati, he had less than 500 carries and 5 fumbles.

[jeff061]

Correlation does not imply causation. Google should create a bot that searches out silly analyses like that and educates people on that topic.

Also, Stevan Ridley?

[mckerney]

We're now a few red arrows away from going full Ballghazi.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Also, Stevan Ridley?

+1

That dude would fumble a nerf ball.

[Solecismic]

Discipline could have something to do with this. Do you see Patriot runners or receivers stretching out to gain an extra foot? How many fumbles are good, hard tackling and how many are careless ball handling? Would Dallas have beaten Green Bay if Dez Bryant didn't automatically stretch for the end zone when a more disciplined approach would have led him to secure the catch and let DeMarco Murray finish the job?

Clearly, the sample size is growing, but the variable we can't control here is that this it's both a relatively rare event and a coachable statistic.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Correlation does not imply causation. Google should create a bot that searches out silly analyses like that and educates people on that topic.

Also, Stevan Ridley?

Throwing out Ridley is pointless as throwing out BGE. That's all anycdotal. The overall analysis of the numbers, though, for all NE offensive plays as opposed to the rest of the league is pretty significant, IMO.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Correlation does not imply causation.

No, but given the combination of facts that...

1. Their lack of fumbling started right after the rule change that allowed each team to provide its own balls.
2. Deflated balls are easier to grip.
3. They just got caught with deflated balls.

...it's not unreasonable to be at least a *little* suspicious.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Correlation does not imply causation. Google should create a bot that searches out silly analyses like that and educates people on that topic.

Also, Stevan Ridley?

Ridley wasn't a big fumbler compared to most other running backs. Ridley averaged a fumble every 84 carries. For reference, Adrian Peterson is 1 every 76, Lynch is 1 every 78 and Jamal Charles is 1 every 65. The best is Arian Foster (1 every 99).

He just seemed to fumble a lot because no other player did in New England. But, when they went to other teams, they left the "fumble protection aura" and acted league average. Blount is 1:75 on other teams, 1:94 on NE. BJGE is 0:500 carries in NE, 1:81 on Cincy. Woodhead is 1:143 on NE, 1:80 on SD. Kevin Faulk is also interesting. He had 11 fumbles in 600 carries from 1999 through 2006. From 2007 to 2011, he didn't fumble once in 252 carries.

Guess the coincidences just keep continuing....

[NobodyHere]

The Patriot fans in this thread makes MBBF's comments in the console thread look sane and rational.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The Patriot fans in this thread makes MBBF's comments in the console thread look sane and rational.

Well I'll fall on that sword, the other Pats fans have wisely vacated, it's all me.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The Patriot fans in this thread makes MBBF's comments in the console thread look sane and rational.

And the bottom line, it's so tiring dealing with this jealous bullshit(yeah rip me for that, I'm asking for it) around every corner. I just want to enjoy the game, in this case the Superbowl, and there's always some hater drumming up non-issues and the media hypes it up because everyone loves to hate the pats. Easy money. So yeah, I'm a bit sensitive to it.

Your team loss, fuck off and leave me alone to enjoy my team.

[Arles]

Honestly, I'm not so much jealous (I will probably root for NE in the Super Bowl) as curious on how much this actually matters. At the beginning, the narrative was "well, it didn't matter in the Colts game so who cares". Then it became, "It helps a little, but not that much so move on". Now, it's getting to the "maybe it does play a big role in ball security and offer a legit advantage over time".

[RainMaker]

I still don't get the defense of "it doesn't help". If it doesn't help, why do it? Same dumb argument we get with steroids. If it didn't help, people wouldn't do it.

[EagleFan]

Your team cheated and got caught. F*cking deal with it like a man and stop trying to act like a martyr.

[Chief Rum]

I'm actually rooting for the Pats in the Super Bowl, although maybe that's more about hating the Seahawks lol.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still don't get the defense of "it doesn't help". If it doesn't help, why do it? Same dumb argument we get with steroids. If it didn't help, people wouldn't do it.

Agreed. And even if it didn't help, it doesn't make cheating okay. It just makes the cheating stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm actually rooting for the Pats in the Super Bowl, although maybe that's more about hating the Seahawks lol.

Pretty much the same here. Although it wasn't exactly easy to be "for" the Pats in the first place, I'd appreciate it if they wouldn't go out of their way to make it even more difficult.

[Fidatelo]

Not a Pats fan (Broncos fan), but if deflated balls help as much as that fumble graph makes it seem, and if the Pats figured that out and then managed to use it successfully to their advantage for the past 8(!) years, all I can do is applaud them. That is super-evil-genius level wicked gamesmanship.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by Arles

Some very interesting analysis of fumbles by Warren Sharp

Those are some eye-opening stats that this guy has put together.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Correlation does not imply causation. Google should create a bot that searches out silly analyses like that and educates people on that topic.

Also, Stevan Ridley?

You have data that shows the Patriots are 30+ touches per fumble better than any team in NFL history and you use the one guy who actually fumbled the ball to prove the statistic is garbage?

LOL. Yeah, why don't we wait and see what happens next year, shall we? When no alteration of the balls happens. We'll see their fumble rate, we'll see how well they do in cold weather games, we'll see if some guys start fumbling more than they ever have.

Wanna know what my guess is?

[Chief Rum]

So, this whole time, I read Warren Sharp as Warren Sapp. And I was thinking, "All right, Warren! Big boy athlete grows up!" haha

[mckerney]

The Real 'Deflategate' Scandal Is That Anyone Cares - TIME

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, this whole time, I read Warren Sharp as Warren Sapp. And I was thinking, "All right, Warren! Big boy athlete grows up!" haha

I read that as Sapp too and thought "Who the hell would trust Warren Sapp to do statistical analysis!?"

[sabotai]

The 2014 Patriots were just the 3rd team in the last 25 years to never have lost a fumble at home!

And FWIW, they didn't lose a fumble at home in 2014, but they did fumble it 6 times (10 times on the road)

And after looking at it, the chart says "Fumbles Since 2010" but then the second chart is saying "Fumbles Lost". The Patriots fumbled it 16 times in 2014, yet the first chart says 33 since 2010. I think the author keeps saying "Fumbles" when he means "Fumbles Lost", and by the way he's mixing the two, he doesn't seem to understand the difference.

they are almost running 100 MORE plays without a single fumble as compared to the 2002-2006 period when they won 2 of their 3 Super Bowls.

No, they are running 100 more plays without a single fumble LOST as compared to the 2002-2006 period.

[Buccaneer]

My guess is, Troy, that next year you'll be hollering and screaming about some other controversy or two or three.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by mckerney

The Real 'Deflategate' Scandal Is That Anyone Cares - TIME

So as fans, are we morally obligated to stop watching football so that we don't play a part in these players sustaining terrible injuries?

[sabotai]

Patriots total fumbles since 2010 (using pro-football-reference)

2010: 9
2011: 15
2012: 14
2013: 27
2014: 16

2010-2014: 81 fumbles

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

And the bottom line, it's so tiring dealing with this jealous bullshit(yeah rip me for that, I'm asking for it) around every corner. I just want to enjoy the game, in this case the Superbowl, and there's always some hater drumming up non-issues and the media hypes it up because everyone loves to hate the pats. Easy money. So yeah, I'm a bit sensitive to it.

Your team loss, fuck off and leave me alone to enjoy my team.

I don't recall anyone calling you out specifically. You are just so wrapped up in it that you are taking it way to personally.

And since you felt the need to call me an idiot, I'll respond with I have no reason to be jealous since my team owns your team in the superbowl.

I like others just find the whole thing interesting. It's like a car accident.

[sabotai]

The Patriots usually are at the top of the league in offensive fumbles (not counting fumbles on special teams) in recent years. More around the league average in the years prior. (Edited to add 2001-2009)

2014: 13 fumbles (league ave: 20.9, Pats ranked 2nd - Vikings had 12)
2013: 24 fumbles (league ave: 20.5, Pats ranked 24th)
2012: 14 fumbles (league ave: 21.2, Pats ranked 6th)
2011: 13 fumbles (league ave: 20.3, Pats ranked 3rd)
2010: 9 fumbles (league ave: 22.8, Pats ranked 1st)
2009: 17 fumbles (league ave: 23.4, Pats ranked 4th)
2008: 17 fumbles (league ave: 22.3, Pats ranked 5th)
2007: 14 fumbles (league ave: 25.0, Pats ranked 2nd)
2006: 27 fumbles (league ave: 23.9, Pats ranked 24th)
2005: 19 fumbles (league ave: 25.2, Pats ranked 6th)
2004: 24 fumbles (league ave: 24.8, Pats ranked 18th)
2003: 25 fumbles (league ave: 25.2, Pats ranked 17th)
2002: 24 fumbles (league ave: 24.9, Pats ranked 11th)
2001: 29 fumbles (league ave: 26.6, Pats ranked 24th)

Definitely a downswing in the last several years, but not nearly as dramatic as the analysis up top would suggest.

[Ryan S]

Has there been any reporting on what the referees do during their inspection?

Do they actually bother to check the pressure, or do they just feel the balls and say "That's OK" unless a ball is obviously deflated. I kind of suspect that it would be the latter...

[sabotai]

This time, using stats from nfl.com (Offense - Game Stats - I'm guessing these also do not have special teams fumbles)

Looking at the fumbles vs. fumbles lost numbers for the Patriots

2014: 13 fumbles , 4 fumbles lost
2013: 24 fumbles, 9 fumbles lost
2012: 14 fumbles, 7 fumbles lost
2011: 13 fumbles, 5 fumbles lost
2010: 9 fumbles, 5 fumbles lost

Total: 73 fumbles, 30 fumbles lost

[path12]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Your team loss, fuck off and leave me alone to enjoy my team.

Mine hasn't.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Has there been any reporting on what the referees do during their inspection?

Do they actually bother to check the pressure, or do they just feel the balls and say "That's OK" unless a ball is obviously deflated. I kind of suspect that it would be the latter...

Mortenson wrote that "league sources confirmed that the balls were properly inspected" by the ref. I would think a little squeeze or eyeballing it wouldn't fall under that description, but the source could also be wrong.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My guess is, Troy, that next year you'll be hollering and screaming about some other controversy or two or three.

Really? What controversies have I went nuts over in the last few years?

No serious punishment for Winston might have taken up 10 posts or so. My absolute hatred of Seattle has shown through (no doubt about that one). I've had about 5 to 10 posts about diving in soccer. I've stayed away from any NBA thread for about three years. I don't recall writing a single post about the Broncos being screwed in the Super Bowl. I wrote about the Chiefs not being as good as their record was quite a bit, but I don't think I was wrong on that analysis and it wasn't exactly a scandal.

So what will I being ranting over? Cheaters? Yeah, I'll rant over cheaters. Absolutely. You can count on that. Thing is, cheating issues happen about once a year in the college threads (I'm talking the major scandals here) and about once every 2 or 3 years in the NFL. The last scandal of this nature I remember in the NFL actually involved "my team" Josh McDaniels videotaped other teams. I don't recall defending McDaniels or the organization when that took place.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by sabotai

This time, using stats from nfl.com (Offense - Game Stats - I'm guessing these also do not have special teams fumbles)

Looking at the fumbles vs. fumbles lost numbers for the Patriots

2014: 13 fumbles , 4 fumbles lost
2013: 24 fumbles, 9 fumbles lost
2012: 14 fumbles, 7 fumbles lost
2011: 13 fumbles, 5 fumbles lost
2010: 9 fumbles, 5 fumbles lost

Total: 73 fumbles, 30 fumbles lost

Nice work here. I think the fumbles analysis is a red herring and just not useful if it is just based on fumbles lost.

That said, I also believe either or both of Brady and the Hoodie are lying.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by digamma

Nice work here. I think the fumbles analysis is a red herring and just not useful if it is just based on fumbles lost.

That said, I also believe either or both of Brady and the Hoodie are lying.

Well, you'd think that a flatter ball would be easier to recover for the fumbling player, since it wouldn't bounce around as much. It would be interesting to see how many of those recovered fumbles were by the player who lost the ball.

[sabotai]

Recreated the intent of the analysis at the top using nfl.com's "offense - game stats" data for 2010-2014. I did Plays/Fumble and Plays/Fumbles Lost. (Again, these don't seem to include special teams fumbles)

(Edit: Added "% Lost" column correct header names)

	Team	Scrm Plys	FUM	Lost	% Lost	Plays/Fum	Plays/FL
Total	Atlanta Falcons	5250	66	39	59.09%	79.55	134.62
Total	New England Patriots	5470	73	30	41.10%	74.93	182.33
Total	New Orleans Saints	5425	76	39	51.32%	71.38	139.10
Total	Houston Texans	5316	87	39	44.83%	61.10	136.31
Total	Green Bay Packers	5105	89	39	43.82%	57.36	130.90
Total	Baltimore Ravens	5207	91	41	45.05%	57.22	127.00
Total	Cincinnati Bengals	5192	97	51	52.58%	53.53	101.80
Total	Minnesota Vikings	4984	95	46	48.42%	52.46	108.35
Total	San Diego Chargers	5144	99	50	50.51%	51.96	102.88
Total	Indianapolis Colts	5276	104	51	49.04%	50.73	103.45
Total	Kansas City Chiefs	5090	101	54	53.47%	50.40	94.26
Total	Pittsburgh Steelers	5122	103	59	57.28%	49.73	86.81
Total	New York Giants	5105	104	60	57.69%	49.09	85.08
Total	San Francisco 49ers	4877	100	43	43.00%	48.77	113.42
Total	Jacksonville Jaguars	5023	103	43	41.75%	48.77	116.81
Total	Carolina Panthers	5008	103	49	47.57%	48.62	102.20
Total	Detroit Lions	5429	113	55	48.67%	48.04	98.71
Total	Cleveland Browns	5037	106	41	38.68%	47.52	122.85
Total	Seattle Seahawks	4935	105	45	42.86%	47.00	109.67
Total	Chicago Bears	4931	105	47	44.76%	46.96	104.91
Total	Dallas Cowboys	5072	112	52	46.43%	45.29	97.54
Total	St. Louis Rams	4993	112	48	42.86%	44.58	104.02
Total	Tennessee Titans	4799	110	53	48.18%	43.63	90.55
Total	New York Jets	5223	120	57	47.50%	43.53	91.63
Total	Denver Broncos	5348	124	67	54.03%	43.13	79.82
Total	Miami Dolphins	5052	120	53	44.17%	42.10	95.32
Total	Arizona Cardinals	4972	120	52	43.33%	41.43	95.62
Total	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	4846	118	57	48.31%	41.07	85.02
Total	Oakland Raiders	5080	125	51	40.80%	40.64	99.61
Total	Buffalo Bills	5065	126	62	49.21%	40.20	81.69
Total	Philadelphia Eagles	5334	137	72	52.55%	38.93	74.08
Total	Washington Redskins	5141	141	57	40.43%	36.46	90.19

[Arles]

You also have to discount fumbles on returns. Edelman has had some the past few years (around 1/3 of their total in one year) and those would be using the kicking ball. They've also had a few fumbles by defensive players (ie, Jamie Collins) and those would be using the opposing footballs. The numbers are pretty amazing when you just look at RBs and Brady the past 5-6 years compared to other teams.

Here's Brady:
2000-2006 - 1 fumble every 65 passes
2007-2014 - 1 fumble every 168 passes

To add on to what Cartman said, from 2000-2006, he lost 50% of his fumbles. In the past 7 years, he lost just 18%. It's hard to get good data on fumbles, but I think there is something here.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by TroyF

They only need to come up with a cheap answer because a couple of douche bags decided they didn't want to play within the rules.

You've got multiple ex-QB's admitting they doctored the balls, even Brad Johnson admitting he bribed an NFL employee to tamper with balls before the Super Bowl. You've got multiple teams warned this year for violations, like Carolina and Minnesota using heater's on the sideline, but keep thinking it's just the Patriots.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Depends on how serious the NFL thinks it is. Is it a big damn deal that has to be prevented going forward, or is it something stupid that should be changed but because the rule's still on the books, the Patriots technically have to be punished?

If it's serious, you come down on it. Hard. Like, way hard. The NFLPA might have an issue with it, but as toothless as the union is when it comes to player discipline, I very much doubt they'd have the spine to fight franchise discipline.

If the NFL thought it was that serious they would have told the Patriots to knock it off before the game, instead of sitting on the information and letting them play the first half. The NFL told Marshawn Lynch not to wear a certain color cleats before the game, but waited until halftime to re-test the balls - it's almost like they were more interested in catching the Patriots than preventing any possible competitive imbalance. If people need the Patriots to be the scapegoat on a relatively small issue, fine, especially with our history. But stop pretending this is a serious thing on its own.

And yes, even as weak as they have been, I do think the NFLPA would fight anything that prevented a team from signing it's current members (veteran FA's) to contracts while forcing them to spend money on non-members (future UDFA's).

Originally Posted by TroyF

I agree. Professional athletes and coaches shouldn't cheat. They should win in within the guidelines of the rules. What I think sucks about it is how many people just try to deflect it off as though it were not important. Cheating isn't correct on any level. You wouldn't teach your child to do it. You wouldn't want your coworker or your boss to cheat. You wouldn't cheat on your taxes. It's horrible behavior and it shouldn't just slide.

There's cheating and there's gamesmanship. Everyone's against the former, and everyone knows the latter happens in every game. You can decide where on the spectrum you think this falls.

Originally Posted by whomario

wait, why exactly ? This is akin to punishing a Running Back individually for an illegal block by his Fullback who thinks he is helping him out best that way, instead of setting the team back some yards. You can punish the team/franchise, but certainly not punish individuals if said individuals are not found guilty of conspiring this thing.

Or is "Presumption of Innocence" not a thing anymore ?

Originally Posted by Arles

I meant the Patriots should be punished in the same way the Saints were punished even though Payton never was shown to have direct knowledge of bountygate.

If you are the leader of a football team and one of your team members (players, coach, staff...) breaks an NFL rule to get an advantage, that comes back on you. Now, I'm not saying the penalty is that Bill should be suspended a year (I didn't agree with the Payton suspension) - but the league has set the precedent that "not knowing" is not a defense for a head coach in regards to team violations and punishment.

Head coach, yes. It is however a defense for an owner or a commissioner!

Originally Posted by TroyF

You have data that shows the Patriots are 30+ touches per fumble better than any team in NFL history and you use the one guy who actually fumbled the ball to prove the statistic is garbage?

LOL. Yeah, why don't we wait and see what happens next year, shall we? When no alteration of the balls happens. We'll see their fumble rate, we'll see how well they do in cold weather games, we'll see if some guys start fumbling more than they ever have.

Wanna know what my guess is?

I can't speak to jeff's point, but I'd point to Ridley as an example of Belichick abhorring fumbling/fumblers more than any coach in the league. Who's at the bottom of the league? The Eagles. How does LeSean McCoy carry the football? There's a correlation there. It's hard to assign any statistical significance to something that happens so infrequently, but if BJGE goes to a team where he knows his spot is safe and he won't be benched or dropped to the practice squad for a fumble he might relax just a little bit. The most frequent fumblers are also QB's, and while Brady's always had a very low rate there he also goes down and turtles before contact a lot - it should be no surprise a Roethlisberger or Luck who stands in the pocket and tries to fight off pass rushers would have a higher fumbling rate.

As for next year, I'd guess the fumble rate would go up slightly because it was at 24 the year before. I'm pretty certain Ridley won't fumble once because he won't be on the Patriots (maybe if everyone passes him over and we can re-sign him for the veteran minimum, like we did with Edelman). And I'll predict we (continue) to do well in cold-weather games, because we've done well in every sort of game for 14 years now. And I'm quite certain that nothing next year will prove anything either way, but anytime a Patriots player fumbles we'll have people bringing this up again.

Originally Posted by sabotai

And FWIW, they didn't lose a fumble at home in 2014, but they did fumble it 6 times (10 times on the road)

And after looking at it, the chart says "Fumbles Since 2010" but then the second chart is saying "Fumbles Lost". The Patriots fumbled it 16 times in 2014, yet the first chart says 33 since 2010. I think the author keeps saying "Fumbles" when he means "Fumbles Lost", and by the way he's mixing the two, he doesn't seem to understand the difference.

Thanks for doing the legwork here. That graph is interesting, but I agree it makes no sense to do it with fumbles lost and not just fumbles. Even the Ravens game I can remember Patriots skill position players fumbling 3 times - one was Amendola on a PR, so we can throw it out because it'd be a K1 ball, but you also have Edelman miraculously recovering his own fumble and Vereen getting bailed out on replay because his knee barely touched the ground before the ball came out.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by digamma

Nice work here. I think the fumbles analysis is a red herring and just not useful if it is just based on fumbles lost.

That said, I also believe either or both of Brady and the Hoodie are lying.

Slight chance Belichick is. Unless something huge is being left out of this story, Brady absolutely is. I was surprised by his press conference.

[sabotai]

And I always felt like the Giants were more unlucky than other teams when it came to fumble recoveries and now I have proof! 57.69% of their fumbles lost (second to the Falcons' 59.09%).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Arles

The numbers are pretty amazing when you just look at RBs and Brady the past 5-6 years compared to other teams.

Here's Brady:
2000-2006 - 1 fumble every 65 passes
2007-2014 - 1 fumble every 168 passes

To add on to what Cartman said, from 2000-2006, he lost 50% of his fumbles. In the past 7 years, he lost just 18%. It's hard to get good data on fumbles, but I think there is something here.

Fwiw, 2009-on (since returning from ACL surgery) is when Brady started turtling on pressure, particularly pressure up the middle. He was noticeably more willing to move around the pocket and stand in before that injury.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You're closer to the situation than I am, so I'll give you that. But it always seems to me that Belichek is about winning, and I find it very hard to believe he thinks Garoppolo is anywhere near to Brady's level, even now. If Garoppolo were here for 3 years and had several stellar preseason or blowout time performances a la Rodgers with Favre, that would be one thing. But he is not.

I think jeff overstates it and it won't happen this offseason, but that whole re-negotiation of Brady's contract last month basically made it possible for us to cut him during the next 3 seasons. If he was 100% going to be here until retirement we would have just guaranteed his $8 million base salary in 2015/2016/2017 as the original contract called for.

Btw - did Rodgers actually look good in preseason? iirc he didn't look great in preseason or mop-up time and they made the move based off what they saw in practice.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Btw - did Rodgers actually look good in preseason? iirc he didn't look great in preseason or mop-up time and they made the move based off what they saw in practice.

Actually, I wasn't sure. I figured he didn't look like crap, though, given what the Packers decided to do (jettison a Hall of Famer) and how Rodgers has done since becoming the starter.

My main point was (even if it is a point made in hindsight) that I suspect the Packers had a lot more reason to go with Rodgers over Favre than the Pats do with Garoppolo over Brady.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, this whole time, I read Warren Sharp as Warren Sapp. And I was thinking, "All right, Warren! Big boy athlete grows up!" haha

LOL. I did the same thing.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Actually, I wasn't sure. I figured he didn't look like crap, though, given what the Packers decided to do (jettison a Hall of Famer) and how Rodgers has done since becoming the starter.

My main point was (even if it is a point made in hindsight) that I suspect the Packers had a lot more reason to go with Rodgers over Favre than the Pats do with Garoppolo over Brady.

Maybe, and like I said I think Brady has played at a high enough level since Gronk started playing full games that it's not even a question this offseason, but both Rodgers and Brady when he replaced Bledsoe were chosen almost entirely on internal evaluations. I think Belichick's actually said he should have had the courage to go with Brady after the offseason, and got bailed out by Mo Lewis injuring Bledsoe. So I don't think he'll need to see evidence of Garoppolo doing it in games in the unlikely event he truly is the better QB in practice.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Fwiw, 2009-on (since returning from ACL surgery) is when Brady started turtling on pressure, particularly pressure up the middle. He was noticeably more willing to move around the pocket and stand in before that injury.

What's interesting is that his sacks per season didn't change a ton. In his first 7 years, he averaged 28.5. In his last 7 (outside of the season he was hurt), he averaged 27.6. So, his fumble rate has been cut in half without a significant change in sacks.