- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
I'm not saying losing Spikes was a positive, I'm saying it has almost no impact statistically.
Obviously, if Belichick put him on the field, it was because he thought Spikes was the best option. And I'm pretty sure Belichick knows more about football than I do, so losing Spikes had to be a negative.
But that being said, I'm not looking at things in a vacuum. There's only 16 games in a football season, so 4 games is a good sample. In fact, you are the one who doesn't try to put things in perspective as you are looking only at the Packers game as proof that the suspension to Spikes was a setback to the defense. The fact is that the defense played their 3 best games WITHOUT Spikes. Yes, other factors need to be taken into consideration, but this is a fact, no way around it. Could Spikes have contributed positively in these 3 games ? Maybe...but based on the data from last season, he was not an impact player, so his loss had a minimal effect on the defense.
You're ignoring other factors when making your analysis, and Rob's trying not to do that. As for the defense playing its 3 best games without Spikes, that's simply a matter of opinion. I would argue that the 45-3 Jets game, with Spikes, was the defense's best game, because that game turned into quicksand for the Jets and it became party time for New England on both sides of the ball.
Last edited: