5 Biggest Difference Makers For the 2014 Patriots

[PatsFans.com Article]

5 Biggest Difference Makers For the 2014 Patriots

Steve Balestrieri

But whoever the Patriots do face on January 10, they’ll have to realize that their top option in the passing game may be taken away, ….to “Revis Island.”

Continue reading...

 

[Fencer]

Steve B. picked 5 "difference makers" on the Pats this season. Naturally, the top 3 were Brady, Gronk and Revis in some order (he chose 1 Gronk, 2 Revis, 3 Brady). His 4 and 5 were Edelman and Hightower. He didn't list his other top candidates, but I imagine they included McCourty, Collins and some DLs.

A couple of tidbits I didn't know:

[Revis has] been talked about as a model teammate, showing that during the long rehab of Rob Gronkowski.

As the Gronk slowly worked his way back into shape, he’d work on the side with Tom Brady running routes all alone as rehabbed his knee. It wasn’t long before Revis, slid over and started working with the two of them….providing soft coverage but giving Gronkowski a defender to work against, all the while encouraging him as he caught Brady’s soft lobs during the early days of camp.

It didn’t seem like a big deal, but it was. The other players would frequently watch the goings on and Revis became one of the boys.

In the four Patriots games where Gronkowski logs 40 or less snaps, the team is 1-3 and averages 18 points per game. In the 12 games where Gronk plays in 40+ snaps, the Patriots are an impressive 11-1 and average 33 points per game.

 

[meatface]

Don't break up the bromance! Bring back Revis

 

[Oswlek]

"In the four Patriots games where Gronkowski logs 40 or less snaps, the team is 1-3 and averages 18 points per game. In the 12 games where Gronk plays in 40+ snaps, the Patriots are an impressive 11-1 and average 33 points per game."

Sorry, this is stat manipulation at its finest.

 

[Fencer]

"In the four Patriots games where Gronkowski logs 40 or less snaps, the team is 1-3 and averages 18 points per game. In the 12 games where Gronk plays in 40+ snaps, the Patriots are an impressive 11-1 and average 33 points per game."

Sorry, this is stat manipulation at its finest.

I completely agree that, in principle, it could be misleading. That said -- do you believe it actually is misleading, and if so what other information to you believe weakens or contradicts the apparent conclusion?

 

[Oswlek]

I completely agree that, in principle, it could be misleading. That said -- do you believe it actually is misleading, and if so what other information to you believe weakens or contradicts the apparent conclusion?

It isn't misleading "in principle", it is simply misleading. There are so many factors ignored that it is frankly laughable that anyone would make that statement, including:

* One of the four games was this past weekend, when NE sat three other starters the entire game and several others for the second half.

* The fact that the OL was a much larger factor in NE's early struggles than Gronk's ramping up.

* The fact that the defense had at least as much to do with NE's September losses than the offense did. You might as well say, "in games that Gronk played less than X snaps, the defense allowed Y points."

* The fact that two of those losses occurred before the LaFell was fully integrated into the offense.

I don't know about the content of the entire article, but that one statement would make a conscientious mathematician cringe. He appears to have also miscounted, using five games of data (weeks 1-4, 17) and crediting the three losses to four weeks instead of five. Trivial, I know, but no reason not to point it out.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

I completely agree that, in principle, it could be misleading. That said -- do you believe it actually is misleading, and if so what other information to you believe weakens or contradicts the apparent conclusion?

Using the arbitrary number of 40 is suspect. I'd imagine if they drew that number at 35 or 45 the numbers look much different which is why they chose 40. I'm sure the team is better with more Gronk, but I'd imagine I could run the numbers for the same effect for Browner (who only played during the hot streak), and probably several others.

 

[Oswlek]

Using the arbitrary number of 40 is suspect. I'd imagine if they drew that number at 35 or 45 the numbers look much different which is why they chose 40. I'm sure the team is better with more Gronk, but I'd imagine I could run the numbers for the same effect for Browner (who only played during the hot streak), and probably several others.

Saying with/without Browner would create the exact same result, since he returned after week 4 and sat out the last game.

 

[Fencer]

It isn't misleading "in principle", it is simply misleading. There are so many factors ignored that it is frankly laughable that anyone would make that statement, including:

* One of the four games was this past weekend, when NE sat three other starters the entire game and several others for the second half.

* The fact that the OL was a much larger factor in NE's early struggles than Gronk's ramping up.

* The fact that the defense had at least as much to do with NE's September losses than the offense did. You might as well say, "in games that Gronk played less than X snaps, the defense allowed Y points."

* The fact that two of those losses occurred before the LaFell was fully integrated into the offense.

I don't know about the content of the entire article, but that one statement would make a conscientious mathematician cringe. He appears to have also miscounted, using five games of data (weeks 1-4, 17) and crediting the three losses to four weeks instead of five. Trivial, I know, but no reason not to point it out.

OK, so your main point is that at the times Gronk was limited there were other known weaknesses as well (at least relatively speaking), especially on offense. Fair enough.

That said, it's a little high-level to say that it's a "fact" that the OL was a bigger difference than Gronk.