NFL 2014 Season - Page 334

On January 24 2015 14:03 Shellshock wrote:
I saw another thing about how neither team is starting a guy who was rated a 5 star recruit going into college trying to say how little those ratings matter down the line

On January 24 2015 14:09 AgentW wrote:
That graphic is a bit misleading. I feel like they should be allotted based on the conference each team was in at the time the player was there. Revis didn't play in the ACC lol.

EDIT: I count at least 3 Big East guys on there.

On January 24 2015 14:29 red_ wrote:


Well there's 1 player from Rutgers, Miami, WVU, VT, Pitt and Syracuse. I don't care to check which year each is from though.

On January 25 2015 05:29 cLutZ wrote:
LOL, the Pats just tried to pull out the "cold deflates things" defense on TV. Some media appear to thing they are correct...which is disturbing.

On January 24 2015 14:03 Shellshock wrote:
I saw another thing about how neither team is starting a guy who was rated a 5 star recruit going into college trying to say how little those ratings matter down the line

On January 25 2015 05:34 usedtocare wrote:


"Tried". Yeah they try so hard. I know you believe it.

Just saying random shit doesn't somehow make your opinion valid. We will have to see what NFL comes up with.

On January 25 2015 06:17 andrewlt wrote:


Some of you Pats fans are getting so fucking dumb with your try hard excuses.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-Lussac's_law

Apply the formula and see if you get 2 PSI from the cold. Unlike you, some of us actually have at least a high school education.

On January 25 2015 06:30 usedtocare wrote:


I'm near damn sure someone with your lvl of intellect wouldn't even know what to do with that info. What a tool. Have you even read what you quoted? It explains it precisely. Way to shit in your own trousers.

On January 25 2015 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:


a hypothesis is considered scientifically true (well, unfalsifiable, more accurately), if it can be confirmed multiple times experimentally. you drop the chemical into the beaker and get a kaboom. not a sizzle, or a spark, a kaboom. multiple times. your hypothesis is very probably correct! you get a kaboom, then a sizzle, then a spark, there's something wrong somewhere.

now we have a unique situation here when it comes to experimentation. we have two test groups, pats balls and colts balls. both were subjected to precisely the same conditions in precisely the same location for precisely the same amount of time. (this is something science can't do most of the time when trying to recreate original conditions precisely).

all balls were checked at both halftime and after the game was over.

patriots balls were deflated.

colts balls maintained their pressure.

so we have an experiment, so to speak, in conditions that cannot be matched by a laboratory (impossible to perfectly recreate the air temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and directions etc.), whose results were not repeated. in other words, if the atmosphere caused the pats balls to deflate, the colts balls should have by at least a similar amount.

they didn't. the difference in air pressure between the two sets of balls was quite marked. the experiments did not yield similar results. thus, the hypothesis that the drop in PSI is mostly or wholly attributable to the weather is either wrong, or there are unknown factors that need to be discovered and taken into account in order to explain why the colts balled handled the drop from 70 degrees to 49 just fine, and the patriots balls did not.

On January 25 2015 06:30 usedtocare wrote:


I'm near damn sure someone with your lvl of intellect wouldn't even know what to do with that info. What a tool. Have you even read what you quoted? It explains it precisely. Way to shit in your own trousers.

On January 25 2015 06:41 DeepElemBlues wrote:


a hypothesis is considered scientifically true (well, unfalsifiable, more accurately), if it can be confirmed multiple times experimentally. you drop the chemical into the beaker and get a kaboom. not a sizzle, or a spark, a kaboom. multiple times. your hypothesis is very probably correct! you get a kaboom, then a sizzle, then a spark, there's something wrong somewhere.

now we have a unique situation here when it comes to experimentation. we have two test groups, pats balls and colts balls. both were subjected to precisely the same conditions in precisely the same location for precisely the same amount of time. (this is something science can't do most of the time when trying to recreate original conditions precisely).

all balls were checked at both halftime and after the game was over.

patriots balls were deflated.

colts balls maintained their pressure.

so we have an experiment, so to speak, in conditions that cannot be matched by a laboratory (impossible to perfectly recreate the air temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and directions etc.), whose results were not repeated. in other words, if the atmosphere caused the pats balls to deflate, the colts balls should have by at least a similar amount.

they didn't. the difference in air pressure between the two sets of balls was quite marked. the experiments did not yield similar results. thus, the hypothesis that the drop in PSI is mostly or wholly attributable to the weather is either wrong, or there are unknown factors that need to be discovered and taken into account in order to explain why the colts balled handled the drop from 70 degrees to 49 just fine, and the patriots balls did not.

On January 25 2015 18:02 cLutZ wrote:
Lynch is really confusing to me. He must have some money stream I don't know about, or is super thrifty, because I can't imagine 5 minutes of being an ass to reporters being worth 1% of my salary. For me that is like Christmas gifts for everyone but my girlfriend.