Seahawks 15
Patriots 10

It's gonna be a real firecracker, y'all.

How does a team score 15 points anyways

no one who chokes deserves to win mvp holy

me well ive stared at spreadsheets for 5 years, so my opinions on labor practices are objectively correct. sorry all.

New England running backs have the fewest fumbles per 100 rushes (about 0.6) of any NFL team going back to 2007, but the difference between New England and the rest of the league isn't as extreme as previous authors suggested—its about 1.5 to 2 fumbles per season. And this puts a point on the whole indictment of these posts: There are some broad and relatively minor observations to be made, if you're conspiratorially-minded enough to make the effort, they just don't have the statistical muscle that you'd expect given how widely they've traveled.

New England finished with the third-lowest fumble rate on receptions, looking at all regular season plays between 2007 and 2014. Interestingly enough, the Ravens, who have been cited as one of the possible whistle blowers for Ballghazi, post the lowest per-reception fumble rate.

Because, Manning and Brady are generally among the quickest in football at getting rid of the ball when dropping back to throw. In fact, according to Pro Football Focus (PFF), Manning led the league in time-to-throw in 2014, at a lightning-quick 2.24 seconds. Brady finished 3rd in 2014, and also ranked 3rd, 1st, and 4th between 2011 and 2013 (PFF stats only go as far back as 2011). Even better, Brady also posted the league's lowest sack-per-dropback rate in 2014.

It's not a great strategy to penalize Brady and the Patriots for a lack of fumbles when there was a lower chance of fumbling to begin with, based on the team's play-calling and personnel that yield quick throws and incompletions, as well as fewer sacks.

So what's a better metric?

Well, one idea would be to compare running backs on fumbles per rush, or receivers on fumbles per reception. To look at quarterbacks is a much more difficult task, given the different speeds at which they get rid of the ball and how often they take sacks, but you might look at something like fumbles per sack or fumbles per QB hit. But the point remains: when quarterbacks throw quickly and avoid sacks, it's seemingly much less likely for the play to end in a fumble. More on this later.

Like, how are you going to sit here and argue with me that all employees are basically slaves and that football players who are making millions of dollars to maybe have a chance at brain injuries are any different from the factory workers in detroit who are constantly plagued with different health complications (which, ironically, is the types of jobs that most football players would have should they not have had their athletic talents). And saying that my opinion is wrong and doesn't matter when I have experience in the work force and you most likely have none is silly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From reddit (more evidence):

http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007