Mike Francesa: Belichick can't surpass Noll or Walsh; Pats never a dynasty

[DocHoliday]

Now he says pats ints and fumbles are mainly because a lot of balls have bounced their way.

SF game???

 

[Deus Irae]

Now he says pats ints and fumbles are mainly because a lot of balls have bounced their way.

Fumbles are almost all about the bounces, so he's right there. INTs... well, we'd have to break down the tipped picks v. clean picks.

 

[PatsSox363804]

Why are you listening to the guy? You honestly think you're going to get well thought out analysis of the Pats from Mike Francesa?

 

[Gumby]

Fumbles are almost all about the bounces, so he's right there. INTs... well, we'd have to break down the tipped picks v. clean picks.

No, Fumble RECOVERIES are (almost) all abut the bounces.
But,......
Fumbles are DEFINITELY NOT. Early on in the season the Pats D was agressively using RIPPING and CHOPPING (Machete-hand a la Sterling Moore AFCCG) techniques to FORCE FUMBLES. That agressive "TECHNIQUE TRAINING & FOCUS" is one of the reasons Pats have a high turnover differential.

Some of them continue to use the techniques (just watch Jones and Ninko when they come at the QB or Mayo/Spikes when going after RBs who get past 5yds from scrimmage) but IMO it seems like they stopped emphasizing it in practices or else the other teams have gotten coached up to hold the ball better around the Pats because of their prior success. (no stats here to back me up, just my eyes/gut tells me their fumble-causing has dropped off in 2nd half of season)

 

[Deus Irae]

No, Fumble RECOVERIES are (almost) all abut the bounces.
But,......
Fumbles are DEFINITELY NOT.

He's talking about recoveries, otherwise he wouldn't be saying the bounces were going the Patriots way.

 

[Koma]

No, Fumble RECOVERIES are (almost) all abut the bounces.
But,......
Fumbles are DEFINITELY NOT. Early on in the season the Pats D was agressively using RIPPING and CHOPPING (Machete-hand a la Sterling Moore AFCCG) techniques to FORCE FUMBLES. That agressive "TECHNIQUE TRAINING & FOCUS" is one of the reasons Pats have a high turnover differential.

Don't forget a butt-but from an offensive lineman. Also effective at forcing fumbles.

 

[upstater1]

He's talking about recoveries, otherwise he wouldn't be saying the bounces were going the Patriots way.

That makes no sense at all.

Why would he only be talking about recoveries?

The fewer fumbles, the fewer recoveries, no matter how lucky you are or how many bounces go your way.

The real test is to see how many fumbles the Patriots caused, how many were recovered.

 

[SVN]

He says he needs Ed reed to do him a favor and play wes welker and shut him down .

 

[Deus Irae]

That makes no sense at all.

Why would he only be talking about recoveries?

The fewer fumbles, the fewer recoveries, no matter how lucky you are or how many bounces go your way.

The real test is to see how many fumbles the Patriots caused, how many were recovered.

:bricks:

I'm not listening to Francessa today, so I can only go by what was posted, and I can only assume that the people are being reasonably accurate in what they claim he's said. It is, however, obvious, that Francessa was referring to fumble recoveries, since he's reportedly talking about bounces going the Patriots way. Fumbles caused doesn't mean a damned thing when you're talking about that.

This is an area we've discussed in other threads, too. The Patriots have been very fortunate in terms of recovery percentage. When we go back and look at games where that wasn't the case (49ers this season, Giants in both playoff matches for example), we see what impact random bounces of an oblong ball can have on a franchise's fortunes.

 

[ivanvamp]

Now he says pats ints and fumbles are mainly because a lot of balls have bounced their way.

In their five previous trips to the SB, here's how the ball has bounced in the playoffs for the Patriots, in terms of fumbles. I'll give the opponent, the number of times that team fumbled, and then the number of *PATRIOT* recoveries.

2001
- vs. Oak: NE 3 fum, 3 rec; Oak 0 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 3 rec)
- vs. Pit: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Pit 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. StL: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; StL 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 7 fumbles, 5 Patriot recoveries

2003
- vs. Ten: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Ten 0 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 1 fum, 0 rec)
- vs. Ind: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Ind 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. Car: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Car 1 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 1 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 5 fumbles, 2 Patriot recoveries

2004
- vs. Ind: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Ind 3 fum, 2 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 2 rec)
- vs. Pit: NE 1 fum, 1 rec; Pit 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 2 rec)
- vs. Phi: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Phi 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 9 fumbles, 5 Patriot recoveries

2007
- vs. Jax: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Jax 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. SD: NE 1 fum, 1 rec; SD 1 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 2 rec)
- vs. NYG: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; NYG 2 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 0 rec)
TOTAL: 7 fumbles, 3 Patriot recoveries

2011
- vs. Den: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Den 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. Bal: NE 2 fum, 1 rec; Bal 1 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. NYG: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; NYG 2 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 0 rec)
TOTAL: 8 fumbles, 2 Patriot recoveries


So here are the totals for these five Super Bowl playoff runs:

# Patriot Fumbles: 12
# Patriot Recoveries of Patriot Fumbles: 6
% of Patriot Recoveries of Patriot Fumbles: 50.0%

# Opponent Fumbles: 24
# Patriot Recoveries of Opponent Fumbles: 11
% of Patriot Recoveries of Opponent Fumbles: 45.8%

Total Fumbles: 36
# Total Patriot Recoveries: 17
% of Patriot Recoveries of Total Fumbles: 47.2%


These are the facts. They are not in dispute. They show that the Patriots have not been "lucky" in terms of fumble recoveries. They've done twice as good a job as the opposition in taking care of the football (12 fumbles vs. 24 by the opposition), but they haven't recovered even half the balls that have hit the ground.

In their five Super Bowl games, there were 11 total fumbles, and the Patriots recovered just 3 of them (27.3%). Yet they managed to win 3 of those 5 games. They actually recovered two fumbles (one vs. StL which Tebucky Jones ran back for a TD, and one last year after Nicks fumbled in Pats' territory) that got wiped out by penalties, but bottom line: they didn't count. So even when they did get the ball on a fumble, it got wiped out. And one more got wrongfully taken from them in SB 42 when Pierre Woods actually recovered an Eli Manning fumble but, while Woods was on the ground *in possession of the ball*, Bradshaw jumped on him and wrestled it away. Woods should have been down by contact the instant Bradshaw touched him but the refs allowed the fight for the ball to continue.

Long story short, the Pats have not been lucky in terms of the "ball bouncing their way". On the contrary - they've won despite the ball bouncing the other teams' way more often than not. At least in the playoffs during their 5 Super Bowl runs.

 

[Deus Irae]

In their five previous trips to the SB, here's how the ball has bounced in the playoffs for the Patriots, in terms of fumbles. I'll give the opponent, the number of times that team fumbled, and then the number of *PATRIOT* recoveries.

2001
- vs. Oak: NE 3 fum, 3 rec; Oak 0 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 3 rec)
- vs. Pit: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Pit 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. StL: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; StL 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 7 fumbles, 5 Patriot recoveries

2003
- vs. Ten: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Ten 0 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 1 fum, 0 rec)
- vs. Ind: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Ind 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. Car: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Car 1 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 1 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 5 fumbles, 2 Patriot recoveries

2004
- vs. Ind: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Ind 3 fum, 2 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 2 rec)
- vs. Pit: NE 1 fum, 1 rec; Pit 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 2 rec)
- vs. Phi: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Phi 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
TOTAL: 9 fumbles, 5 Patriot recoveries

2007
- vs. Jax: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; Jax 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. SD: NE 1 fum, 1 rec; SD 1 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. NYG: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; NYG 2 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 0 rec)
TOTAL: 7 fumbles, 2 Patriot recoveries

2011
- vs. Den: NE 1 fum, 0 rec; Den 2 fum, 1 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. Bal: NE 2 fum, 1 rec; Bal 1 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 3 fum, 1 rec)
- vs. NYG: NE 0 fum, 0 rec; NYG 2 fum, 0 rec (TOT: 2 fum, 0 rec)
TOTAL: 8 fumbles, 2 Patriot recoveries


So here are the totals for these five Super Bowl playoff runs:

# Patriot Fumbles: 12
# Patriot Recoveries of Patriot Fumbles: 6
% of Patriot Recoveries of Patriot Fumbles: 50.0%

# Opponent Fumbles: 24
# Patriot Recoveries of Opponent Fumbles: 11
% of Patriot Recoveries of Opponent Fumbles: 45.8%

Total Fumbles: 36
# Total Patriot Recoveries: 17
% of Patriot Recoveries of Total Fumbles: 47.2%


These are the facts. They are not in dispute. They show that the Patriots have not been "lucky" in terms of fumble recoveries. They've done twice as good a job as the opposition in taking care of the football (12 fumbles vs. 24 by the opposition), but they haven't recovered even half the balls that have hit the ground.

In their five Super Bowl games, there were 11 total fumbles, and the Patriots recovered just 3 of them (27.3%). Yet they managed to win 3 of those 5 games. They actually recovered two fumbles (one vs. StL which Tebucky Jones ran back for a TD, and one last year after Nicks fumbled in Pats' territory) that got wiped out by penalties, but bottom line: they didn't count. So even when they did get the ball on a fumble, it got wiped out. And one more got wrongfully taken from them in SB 42 when Pierre Woods actually recovered an Eli Manning fumble but, while Woods was on the ground *in possession of the ball*, Bradshaw jumped on him and wrestled it away. Woods should have been down by contact the instant Bradshaw touched him but the refs allowed the fight for the ball to continue.

Long story short, the Pats have not been lucky in terms of the "ball bouncing their way". On the contrary - they've won despite the ball bouncing the other teams' way more often than not.

This is 2011. He's talking about the 2011 team. The Patriots are 50/50 (42/21) in terms of fumbles lost and recovered.

 

[ivanvamp]

This is 2011. He's talking about the 2011 team. The Patriots are 50/50 (42/21) in terms of fumbles lost and recovered.

Ok. 50% is not "lucky". That's what we should expect since fumble recoveries are, as you have said, mainly about the fortuitous bounce of the ball.

 

[Rob0729]

Today he is on about "Spygate" ruined peoples lives and changed the course after the pats/rams games and how nfl made a blunder in not disclosing about the spygate details to the public because that pats/rams games changed lives for martz/warner and all of them.

First of all, Francesa wears his agenda against Kraft and Belichick on his sleeve. I am surprised he didn't rehash how the evil Kraft psychologically tortured Parcells until Parcells courageously escaped Kraft's grasps by doing the honorable thing not turn the fact he was negotiating a contract with the Jets the week of the Super Bowl into a media circus.

Second, how exactly did Martz and Warner have their lives change forever because of Spygate? Did Spygate make Martz forget he had Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl?

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok. 50% is not "lucky". That's what we should expect since fumble recoveries are, as you have said, mainly about the fortuitous bounce of the ball.

I don't disagree with your analysis here. I've been just pointing out what Francessa must have meant. Recovery is the key, as the Super Bowls really show.

3 winning SBs:

6 fumbles, 3 recovered, 1 recovered each game

2 losing SBs:

5 fumbles, 0 recovered


Looking a bit deeper:

In 2007

1.) Fumble on the Giants 30. Given the way the Patriots worked 4th down that year, this may have been at the edge of FG range, but clearly could have been converted to a legit FG attempt with just a few yards gained.

2.) Manning fumble in NE territory. No scoring in the end, so no harm.

3.) Patriots moving the ball from there 23 to the Giants 44, only to fumble and lose the ball on a drive where they were doing well.

In 2011 here were actually 3 fumbles rather than the 2 noted.

1.) the Spikes recovery that was lost because of a penalty and ended up leading to a Giants TD.

2.) Mayo forces fumble on the NE 34, but the Giants recover and go on to kick a FG

3.) Giants fumble at the NY 11, where a Patriots fum rec is essentially a guaranteed 3-7 points.

All 3 fumble recoveries in the 2011 game were huge, because they either led to points or prevented all but guaranteed points.

So, all but one fumble recovery in the two games can be looked at as significant negatives. Had just one of them in each game (other than the Manning fumble in Patriots territory) gone the Patriots way, it's quite possible/likely that would have been enough to be the difference, in favor of the Patriots, in those games.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't disagree with your analysis here. I've been just pointing out what Francessa must have meant. Recovery is the key, as the Super Bowls really show.

3 winning SBs:

6 fumbles, 3 recovered, 1 recovered each game

2 losing SBs:

5 fumbles, 0 recovered


Looking a bit deeper:

In 2007

1.) Fumble on the Giants 30. Given the way the Patriots worked 4th down that year, this may have been at the edge of FG range, but clearly could have been converted to a legit FG attempt with just a few yards gained.

2.) Manning fumble in NE territory. No scoring in the end, so no harm.

3.) Patriots moving the ball from there 23 to the Giants 44, only to fumble and lose the ball on a drive where they were doing well.

In 2011 here were actually 3 fumbles rather than the 2 noted.

1.) the Spikes recovery that was lost because of a penalty and ended up leading to a Giants TD.

2.) Mayo forces fumble on the NE 34, but the Giants recover and go on to kick a FG

3.) Giants fumble at the NY 11, where a Patriots fum rec is essentially a guaranteed 3-7 points.

All 3 fumble recoveries in the 2011 game were huge, because they either led to points or prevented all but guaranteed points.

So, all but one fumble recovery in the two games can be looked at as significant negatives. Had just one of them in each game (other than the Manning fumble in Patriots territory) gone the Patriots way, it's quite possible/likely that would have been enough to be the difference, in favor of the Patriots, in those games.

I did mention the fumble recovery by the Pats last year in the SB that got wiped out because of a penalty...thus, it doesn't show up in the official stats. I mentioned it in the same breath as the Tebucky Jones fumble recovery for a TD that got wiped out by McGinest's holding penalty on Faulk.

The big fumble in last year's SB was Bradshaw's on their 11. That came right after the Brady interception on the deep ball to Gronk. If the Pats get that fumble, they almost certainly win the game.

 

[Deus Irae]

I did mention the fumble recovery by the Pats last year in the SB that got wiped out because of a penalty...thus, it doesn't show up in the official stats. I mentioned it in the same breath as the Tebucky Jones fumble recovery for a TD that got wiped out by McGinest's holding penalty on Faulk.

The big fumble in last year's SB was Bradshaw's on their 11. That came right after the Brady interception on the deep ball to Gronk. If the Pats get that fumble, they almost certainly win the game.

I hear you, and I wasn't posting counter to your position. I was just laying out the fumbles individually. It's a genuine frustration for me to think that the Patriots could be 5-0 in Super Bowls with something as simple as 2 fumbles bouncing into their hands instead of into the hands of the Giants among the crowd of players.

 

[ivanvamp]

I hear you, and I wasn't posting counter to your position. I was just laying out the fumbles individually. It's a genuine frustration for me to think that the Patriots could be 5-0 in Super Bowls with something as simple as 2 fumbles bouncing into their hands instead of into the hands of the Giants among the crowd of players.

The picture below captures for me the frustration of last year's SB, in light of what we're talking about. Look at it. Six - count 'em, SIX - Patriots around Nicks, who coughs up the ball. And the ball ends up bouncing backward about 5-7 yards where a Giant trailing the play ends up with it. Any other direction and the Pats get it. It bounces the only place it can where the Pats do NOT recover it.

EDIT: Not sure why the picture won't show up, so click the link here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ifp0f9GWma0/T1jItkCkCdI/AAAAAAAAAE0/pD0Gv-c6lHg/s1600/Nicks%2BFumble%2BSB.png

 

[Gumby]

:bricks:

I'm not listening to Francessa today, so I can only go by what was posted, and I can only assume that the people are being reasonably accurate in what they claim he's said. It is, however, obvious, that Francessa was referring to fumble recoveries, since he's reportedly talking about bounces going the Patriots way. Fumbles caused doesn't mean a damned thing when you're talking about that.

This is an area we've discussed in other threads, too. The Patriots have been very fortunate in terms of recovery percentage. When we go back and look at games where that wasn't the case (49ers this season, Giants in both playoff matches for example), we see what impact random bounces of an oblong ball can have on a franchise's fortunes.

Minor point: I was bouncing off YOUR choice of words when you said Francesca was right. You choose 'fumbles' and not 'fumble recoveries'

DEUS: Fumbles are almost all about the bounces, so he's right there. INTs... well, we'd have to break down the tipped picks v. clean picks.

But the ORIGINAL POINT by Francesca (as SVN posted) is STILL WRONG.

Originally Posted by SVN
Now he says pats ints and fumbles are mainly because a lot of balls have bounced their way.

As other posters pointed out on a season average an appx 50% rate of recovery of fumbles is not exactly stuff BOUNCING THEIR WAY.

But the OBVIOUS UNSTATED POINT WHY he is making this 'ACCUSATION' is that the Pats have a (what ?) + 22 turnover DIFF.

My point: How did they get that LUCKY +22 DIFF.......... THE PATS WORKED TO EARN IT.
..... and that is where Francesca is deliberately just playing to his fan-base (NY pats haters) and selectively ignoring facts.


Going off down the road of arguing who used the word recoveries and who meant f.r.s when they say f.s is a fine way to start an internet D-measuring contest; but REALLY NOT THE POINT.

 

[Deus Irae]

Minor point: I was bouncing off YOUR choice of words when you said Francesca was right. You choose 'fumbles' and not 'fumble recoveries'

I know what you were doing. You were ignoring both the obvious intent and the fact that it was a word being used by the original poster, in order to split a hair that didn't need to be split. I explained my meaning/reasoning in my response, and we both know what was meant, so let's just move on.