Baur10

Established Members
  • Content Count

    4,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Baur10 last won the day on May 19 2019

Baur10 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,033 Excellent

About Baur10

  • Rank
    On the Ballot

Previous Fields

  • Add to Mailing List?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

4,160 profile views
  1. Yeah, because there's no middle ground between that and blog sites created by Patriots fans with multiple glaring falsehoods on them even at the quickest of glances
  2. About as reliable and unbiased a source on the subject as "yourteamcheats"
  3. The pressure readings at halftime were taken by NFL officials, who are trained and comfortable taking them. The research data, predictive models, and number crunching were done by Exponent consulting firm. In the article the names of the researchers (which are spread out through the article unfortunately) have a hyperlink to their bio page which has their qualifications. Plus Exponent even looked into whether inter-examiner and inter-instrument error could have been a cause of the abnormal measurements and didn't find enough variability to explain the issues. I mean I understand not wanting to give up your cell phone to people. I'm sure his lawyers could have made sure that the only things looked at were limited to the scope of the investigation though. Plus the investigators requested access to the texts before he destroyed the phone. Again I get it, but you gotta admit that's way too convenient to be a coincidence.
  4. It's an interesting lecture but few big things are off here: 1) The video skips at where he gets the timelines for when the Pats and Colts measure the ball but based on the time boxes he shows he has the time at which the patriots balls were measured as beginning at the halftime extending up to the first 6 minutes of the half. The report has multiple witnesses and camera footage that say that they brought both bags of balls to the official's locker room, spent 2-4 minutes organizing the measurements, then 4-5 minutes testing the patriots balls. Even on the lowest end of the estimate that's not possible in his timeframe (unless the balls were transported instantly to the locker room and then you take the absolute lowest measurement. There's also nothing to suggest that they waited several minutes (at least 2 per the ranges he provides) between measuring the pats and colts balls as they describe going one by one assembly line fashion. They report shows they re-inflated the balls after measuring them all, not between or during like he's suggesting. 2) His criticism for their transient curves don't make a ton of sense. He argues they shouldn't be parallel but the graph in which they converge is measured over a period of 2 hours and even then weren't back to the same level. The pressure curve using the actual gauges over 13 minutes, of course they look more parallel. He also argues he doesn't know where they got the numbers from but they pretty clearly outline their methods in the paper. They also selected temperature ranges based on "values for the pre-game and halftime locker room temperatures shown in Figure 27 put the Patriots transient curves at their lowest possible positions. Any change in these temperatures within the allowed range that still permits the Colts transient curves to match the Colts halftime measurements will only push the Patriots transient curves up and make it more difficult to explain the observed readings by environmental and measurement process factors alone." 3) Averaging the 2 gauges readings makes the data easier to look at, but doesn't make sense. There are slight differences in the gauges and their data really should be looked at separately. 4) He's making the assumption that the Patriots balls were wetter than the Colts balls because they were kept in a bag and the Patriots did not. The report has witnesses describing how both teams kept several balls within a bag and dry the whole first half, made attempts to keep all the balls dry (ie the Patriots ball boys didn't just leave all their game balls out in the rain because of course they didn't that would be ridiculous), and that at halftime they described that "some but not all of the balls were moist at halftime but none were waterlogged" TL;DR, in order for his analysis to approach being accurate the patriots balls would have had to been wetter than the colts balls and measured very early (likely impossibly early) on in the halftime, followed by a gap, then the colts balls measured all of which goes against what witnesses testimony and push the limits of what physically could have happened. Those are a lot of huge stretches to make for someone who was not involved in the raw data collection and analysis. Meanwhile we have damning text messages from a ballboy who took gameballs out of the locker room against protocol and is on camera bringing them to a separate bathroom before the game, Brady "randomly" deciding to destroy his phone. Sure nothing to see there. And before anyone starts mocking my audacity in criticizing the work of an MIT physics professor, keep in mind the original data was collected by guys with a Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering from Case Western, a Ph.D in Statistics from Carnegie Mellon, a Ph.D in Materials Science and Engineering from Stanford, a Ph.D in Materials Science and Engineering from Columbia, and a Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering from Stanford. All of whom have listened to the criticism of detractors including Jon Leonard and stick by their data.
  5. Funny enough, after posting a link to the complete findings of the deflategate investigation not a single defender responded. Not a single one was able to debate the findings from an actual scientific basis. "Biased source!" "Witch Hunt!" "Just jealous!" BS. Here's another shot at it: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/06/sports/football/07deflate-doc.html Would LOVE to hear an actual scientific explanation to refute these findings. I'll wait...
  6. Not to make excuses, but that's real tough to do when you lose your top 3 RBs and a several interior linemen.
  7. Correct: If I was a Hawks fan in the moment I would have been pretty annoyed too, but it seems like it's more a case of the yellow line being off than the ref's screwing up. Even if he was short it would be really hard to get anything irrefutable given the angles we've seen. Sucks that it came down to something like that but it is what it is.
  8. I want to start a petition to make Marshawn Lynch a game day commentator.
  9. We have plenty of vitriol for both. And let's not pretend there aren't degrees of "dirty" when it comes to this kind of stuff. Not being at the level of Burfict or Gronk's hit against the Bills doesn't mean it's beyond reproach. I already said that in all likelihood that isn't the difference in the game, but it's absolutely idiotic for people to say "can't believe anyone would call that dirty," "clearly he wasn't aiming for the head," "he was a runner and didn't give himself up," "they were better off with McCown anyway" etc etc and I have zero issue calling them out on it. You can mock that all you want but you know for damn sure if the roles were reversed with Brandon Graham and Russel Wilson Seahawks fans would be just as PO'd.
  10. So your "proof" that he wasn't aiming for his head is a stillshot where his helmet is a centimeter away from Wentz's helmet and all his momentum carrying him towards it? 🤣 First it "wasn't dirty at all", then its "yeah it was dirty but he only hit the helmet cause he bounced", now it's "his shoulder hits a fraction of a second before his helmet hits so clearly he wasn't aiming there". Get real dude.
  11. He didn't "bounce" before he hit Wentz's head. The video is RIGHT there man, you can't just make things up. His shoulder and head hit at the same time. Again arguing intent is impossible, but arguing that he "obviously" wasn't aiming for his head when that's exactly what he hit is ridiculous. If he wasn't aiming for his head his aim sucks.
  12. How is that obvious? It's impossible to argue intent either way but he clearly made an adjustment at the last minute and hit Wentz in the back of his head with his helmet. Saying it's "obvious" he wasn't trying to do the thing that he clearly did seems silly.
  13. Meh firmly mediocre feeling hire but the Cowboys have talent on both sides of the ball. They didn't need a home run at HC to still do damage, just mild competence.
  14. I thought that one was just a really flagrant facemask non-call? I dunno I remember being annoyed at it wasn't called but figured it was just the only thing he could grab after Foles ducked. This one is much more egregious.
  15. Look I'll go out on a limb and say the Eagles didn't deserve to win that game with or without Wentz. The offense had next to zero offensive weapons and the had no way of stopping Metcalf. And I wouldn't even go as far as to call Clowney a dirty player cause I can't think of him having issues like that in the past. But you're out of your mind if you didn't think that wasn't a dirty hit. "Lead with his shoulder" my arse. He speared the back of Wentz's helmet as he's falling down. As far as Wentz not "giving himself up" as a runner, a head first dive by a QB is, by rule, giving himself up in the same way as a slide. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/04/nfl-rules-will-now-treat-head-first-dives-like-feet-first-slides/ Eagles literally had a 2 pt conversion overturned earlier this year because of this rule that apparently now doesn't exist. Congrats to the Seahawks. They won the game and deserved to win the game. But c'mon get real with this "bang bang play/clean hit" nonsense.