Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[Cape Brewing]

It just gets really fckuing old.... And 99% of it is NOT busting balls. A huge percentage of fckuing morons out there BELIEVE this shti.

 

[jbaysurfer]

This is pretty interesting... Deadspin explains why Those Statistics About the Patriots' Fumbles are Mostly Junk

In short, statistics can be made to say pretty much whatever you want. Especially if you treat them badly.

The analysis is so much more credible then it's defense. They decry the use of all caps and claim that 2 fumbles on the road for the Vikings is 1/3rd of the Patriots home fumbles...which...was...zero.

The Y axis critique totally ignores the concept of a normal distribution curve, and the Pats results are 3 standard deviations out. I'm not on about deflategate right now, but the data is compelling. If I were a Pats fan I'd stop trying to shot a hole in it and instead present it as evidence they are the most well coached team in history when it comes to ball handling. JMHO.

 

[Cape Brewing]

There ya go... Thank you for proving my point.

 

[HoppyDaze]

I believe the Patriots cheated. You don't?

 

[jbaysurfer]

It just gets really fckuing old.... And 99% of it is NOT busting balls. A huge percentage of fckuing morons out there BELIEVE this shti.

I get that and I get your frustration. But I assure you I WAS just bustin' balls. Sorry if I turned the screws a bit too much. I sincerely laugh at all the deflategate coverage. Honestly? I think the referee who measured the balls screwed up and now the league is scrambling to cover itself in the face of public outcry.

You know we're rivals and I'm gonna always seize on stuff like this, but in the realm of the real world. Ball deflation is a joke subject when the Pats blew out the Colts the way they did.

 

[TheDudeLebowski]

Turning attention to Katy Perry's orbs would be more worthwhile.

 

[Darwin18]

Pats are cheaters. No apologies from me Cape.

 

[h22lude]

I get that and I get your frustration. But I assure you I WAS just bustin' balls. Sorry if I turned the screws a bit too much. I sincerely laugh at all the deflategate coverage. Honestly? I think the referee who measured the balls screwed up and now the league is scrambling to cover itself in the face of public outcry.

You know we're rivals and I'm gonna always seize on stuff like this, but in the realm of the real world. Ball deflation is a joke subject when the Pats blew out the Colts the way they did.

This is a very good possibility. If this happened or if the Pats really did it, it is going to be hard to prove either way. I'm glad to see the media turn their attention to the SB during this week.

 

[dunnright00]

It just gets really fckuing old.... And 99% of it is NOT busting balls. A huge percentage of fckuing morons out there BELIEVE this shti.

99% from me is busting balls...

But %100 of my posts are to get reactions like this!

 

[h22lude]

Pats are cheaters. No apologies from me Cape.

Jets are cheaters. They like to put players on the sideline to intentionally interfere with the play on the field. Once a cheater always a cheater. They do it every game.

 

[jbaysurfer]

Jets are cheaters. They like to put players on the sideline to intentionally interfere with the play on the field. Once a cheater always a cheater. They do it every game.

Relevant fact. ^

 

[stratslinger]

The analysis is so much more credible then it's defense. They decry the use of all caps and claim that 2 fumbles on the road for the Vikings is 1/3rd of the Patriots home fumbles...which...was...zero.



The Y axis critique totally ignores the concept of a normal distribution curve, and the Pats results are 3 standard deviations out. I'm not on about deflategate right now, but the data is compelling. If I were a Pats fan I'd stop trying to shot a hole in it and instead present it as evidence they are the most well coached team in history when it comes to ball handling. JMHO.

How much of the analysis did you even read? Get to the caps comment (which I admit was kind of dumb) and just tune out?

They pointed out not that the Vikings fumbled 2 times bs the Pats 0, but bs the Pats 6. It's been written and discussed over and over again that recovering fumbles is usually a matter of luck. The pats were fortunate and recovered all 6 of theirs, the Vikings were less fortunate and recovered neither of theirs. The point still stands, the Pats put the ball on the ground 3x more than he Vikings did. But it doesn't support the initial analysis, so it was ignored.

And as the article pointed out, the plays/fumble metric that is being looked at doesn't take into account any context about the type of plays called. And looking across all teams isn't even a star that fits a bell curve anyway. Weirdly, the converse stat, fumbles/play, does fit such a curve. And by whatever trick of math (see: stats can say whatever you want) that stat shows the Pats on the top of the charts again, but not by an implausible amount.

The whole of that article in fact does seem to suggest that they're a well coached team, and not some statistical impossibility. You just have to, you know, read the damn thing.

 

[jbaysurfer]

How much of the analysis did you even read? Get to the caps comment (which I admit was kind of dumb) and just tune out?

They pointed out not that the Vikings fumbled 2 times bs the Pats 0, but bs the Pats 6. It's been written and discussed over and over again that recovering fumbles is usually a matter of luck. The pats were fortunate and recovered all 6 of theirs, the Vikings were less fortunate and recovered neither of theirs. The point still stands, the Pats put the ball on the ground 3x more than he Vikings did. But it doesn't support the initial analysis, so it was ignored.

And as the article pointed out, the plays/fumble metric that is being looked at doesn't take into account any context about the type of plays called. And looking across all teams isn't even a star that fits a bell curve anyway. Weirdly, the converse stat, fumbles/play, does fit such a curve. And by whatever trick of math (see: stats can say whatever you want) that stat shows the Pats on the top of the charts again, but not by an implausible amount.

The whole of that article in fact does seem to suggest that they're a well coached team, and not some statistical impossibility. You just have to, you know, read the damn thing.

I read it all. How much of my post did you read? There's a way out here, but trying to tell us data 3 standard deviations out isn't compelling -isn't it.

 

[stratslinger]

But the point of the article (one of them) was that the 3 standard deviations thing was a made up, crap figure based on bad stats as input, and bad assumptions about the results as output. Garbage in, even worse garbage out.

 

[bluemoose]

Rodgers didn't throw a pick at home. CHEATER!

Backed by stats, sweet graph to follow. (where the hell did I put my crayons and ruler?)

 

[jbaysurfer]

But the point of the article (one of them) was that the 3 standard deviations thing was a made up, crap figure based on bad stats as input, and bad assumptions about the results as output. Garbage in, even worse garbage out.

It's got room for more examination, like every study ever done. But it most certainly does not tell us that the 3 standard deviation thing is made up. Yeah, I read it.

Your teams fumble record is phenomenal, and its compelling, no matter how you present the data. What you attribute it too is really up to you.

 

[stratslinger]

And that one's even less ambiguous than the fumbles thing.

Pats didn't lose a fumble at home. Sure they dropped the ball 6 times, and were lucky enough to have a teammate fall on it each time. But they didn't lose a fumble, so they must be cheaters! Couldn't possibly be a disciplined team who doesn't drop the ball often and got lucky those times they did.

While Rodgers doesn't throw a pick at home - something that involves very little luck, and no qualifiers. Just an a self-admittedly over inflated ball or two snuck by the refs. And probably a couple DPI non-calls that went his teams way... But he's just a great QB, amirite?

 

[the_bird]

Jets are cheaters. They like to put players on the sideline to intentionally interfere with the play on the field. Once a cheater always a cheater. They do it every game.

Players? You mean, coaches?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036WG9nV54k[/ame]

 

[the_bird]

I read it all. How much of my post did you read? There's a way out here, but trying to tell us data 3 standard deviations out isn't compelling -isn't it.

I believe that you read it, but didn't understand one iota.

 

[h22lude]

Players? You mean, coaches?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=036WG9nV54k

Yup. Not only is that cheating but he also tried to hurt a player. Tripgate!!!

 

[the_bird]

I mean, I know I can't claim to be the most objective observer in the world, but it's those kinds of plays - intentionally trying to hurt the opposing player - that grinds my gears. The BountyGate never got the attention it deserved. Or back in the day, when the Denver offensive line was known for using illegal chop blocks; how many knees got blown out because of that?

Taking video of signals from the wrong spot, when everyone in the stadium can see them? Meh.
Aaron Rodgers intentionally over-inflating the football? Meh.
The Vikings' and Panthers' ballboys heating up the footballs on the sidelines, against league rules? Meh.
Cleveland Browns getting improper text messages on the sidelines (this one kind of disappeared). Meh.

Trying to blow out a guy's knee? Intentionally stomping on a guy's injured ankle? **** that ****.

 

[Darwin18]

Jets should probably do a better job at cheating then.

 

[bluemoose]

Jets should probably do a better job at cheating then.

Yeah, at least when the Pats cheat, they win. Wait...what?

 

[jbaysurfer]

I believe that you read it, but didn't understand one iota.

If you weren't an obvious moron, I might care.

Edit: Is it more obnoxious if I add a smiley face?

 

[ChshreCat]

So, by pointing out that the Jets cheat too, you're saying what? The patties are no better than the Jets? Excellent argument.

 

[paulthenurse]

No. They're much better than the Jets no matter the circumstances .

 

[Darwin18]

Only because they're much better cheaters.

 

[paulthenurse]

The best

 

[Darwin18]

Better than all the rest

 

[Cape Brewing]

Better than all the rest

Said your mom