AFCCG Practice/Info Thread

[Ring 6]

How is that not an indicator of his production? It's not one any of us would choose as our preferred method, but the reality is that it is indeed, a measuring stick based on yardage, touchdowns thrown, etc.

No one said he wasn't winning, just that his offensive production has been down from where it was when Gronk was in there, which is s fact.

You used it as your preferred method basing your argument in it.

 

[JMC00]

Fantasy points ugh

He wasn't even right.

Claims Brady and Gronk played 8 games together, they only played 5 games together.

Says Brady only had 3 games of 16+ points without Gronk, he had 5 and was 2 points away from having another 16 point game.

 

[Tony2046]

Yeah, you don't magically limp 3 days after everyone and their mom has seen you walk and practice without one.

Two rules: Limp in front of Bedard. Limp in front of Volin with a box of Mac&Cheese in your pocket.

 

[AtomicDawg]

Two rules: Limp in front of Bedard. Limp in front of Volin with a box of Mac&Cheese in your pocket.

And a Google search box open on your phone.

 

[BingoBrown]

Note to Pats defense Do not let tackled players breath on you,wash hands thoroughly after game.

 

[supafly]

Not sure where you are getting this from but Brady has 5 games of 16+ points without Gronk.

SF
jests 2x
****birds
lolphins

Had 20+ points in 4 of them. Against the Rams he had 14 but that game they used the Plan F gameplan.

Also not sure where you get that they played 8 games together. Only played 5, Browns, Bungles, jills, Steelers and Seahawks. He missed the 49ers game and went out early against the jests

Per NumberFire, here is the direct quote and link:

"3 of Brady's 6 games this year played without Rob Gronkowski have resulted in less than 16 fantasy points scored. He hit that mark in 6/7 games with Gronk this year."

38 Facts to Know About This Weekend's NFL Conference Championship Round

 

[supafly]

38 Facts to Know About This Weekend's NFL Conference Championship Round

Fantasy points ugh

I have no real information about how fantasy football is calculated. I do have a gut level reaction that anyone who pays attention to fantasy football has their mind corrupted by it and can't be taken seriously when analyzing real football. Fantasy football is the pornographication of the sport. Using it to evaluate players is like measuring the quality of your social life by the number of FB friends you have.

Now get off my lawn.

I rarely even play fantasy football, but when there's a pre-determined formula that takes yardage, TDs, and interceptions thrown into account (with and without Rob Gronkowski, which was the point), I see nothing wrong in using some numbers to show the difference in production.

You can go to any other statistical site if you wish and see the same exact numbers with/without Gronkowski put into different wording, but since I was reading the article that I cited (38 interesting facts about the conference championships) I figured that I'd share the info. Use it. Don't use it. Keep scrolling. Don't. What the hell do I care?

 

[patfanken]

NO offense is going to be as good as it was without Gronk as it would be with him. That's just a factor of just what an impact player he is. The Pats have spent a better part of the last half of the season tinkering with how to maximize their offense with the players at hand, including picking up Michael Floyd. That production against some very good defenses wasn't bad. What we see tomorrow will be the result of all that tinkering. Personally I think you will be happy with the results

 

[supafly]

NO offense is going to be as good as it was without Gronk as it would be with him. That's just a factor of just what an impact player he is. The Pats have spent a better part of the last half of the season tinkering with how to maximize their offense with the players at hand, including picking up Michael Floyd. What we see tomorrow will be the result of all that tinkering. Personally I think you will be happy with the results

I hope so too, but using Michael Floyd as the example of why we should be excited probably isn't the best choice.

I know what you're saying and I agree with you. At the same time there's absolutely nothing wrong with showing the difference in Brady's production with and without our biggest weapon, and how people haven't noticed as much because the team keeps winning and relying so heavily on Edelman.

 

[supafly]

He wasn't even right.

Claims Brady and Gronk played 8 games together, they only played 5 games together.

Says Brady only had 3 games of 16+ points without Gronk, he had 5 and was 2 points away from having another 16 point game.

Dude, I cited an article from a major statistical publication, which I provided the link to. If you have issue and think you know more than they do, take it up with them or write a letter to your congressman. You certainly aren't correct about it being 5 games either, since I can count the 3 AFCN teams, Seattle, Buffalo, and the NYJ right off the top of my head.

In the meantime, the offense is certainly much different without Gronk and proven by Brady's lack of production and over-reliance on Julian Edelman, which was the point of the article.

 

[Mack Herron]

Interesting call for the last active spot.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

Interesting call for the last active spot.

If 3 out of 4 of your primary WRs are hobbled and still listed on the injury report (Hogan, Amendola, Mitchell) they will likely be less than 100%... you can put Bennett in that category too. In that case, I would activate all 5 receivers, including Floyd.

Question is....who do you remove off the active roster?

 

[AtomicDawg]

If 3 out of 4 of your primary WRs are hobbled and still listed on the injury report (Hogan, Amendola, Mitchell) they will likely be less than 100%... you can put Bennett in that category too. In that case, I would activate all 5 receivers, including Floyd.

Question is....who do you remove off the active roster?

What a first-world problem this is....would have been great to have this discussion last year!

But I would guess a Richards et al would be the "one"....special teams (DA, Bolden) are what I think needs to be paramount here.

 

[supafly]

Interesting call for the last active spot.

If it comes down to Mitchell vs. Floyd, I'd much rather see Mitchell. He has a better chemistry with Brady.

If the idea is to be more physical etc, then I can understand the choice of Floyd.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Interesting call for the last active spot.

I disagree with Mikey here.

You dress all 5.

Bennett, Hogan, Mitchell and DA are all dealing with something.

 

[deroc5050]

If 3 out of 4 of your primary WRs are hobbled and still listed on the injury report (Hogan, Amendola, Mitchell) they will likely be less than 100%... you can put Bennett in that category too. In that case, I would activate all 5 receivers, including Floyd.

Question is....who do you remove off the active roster?

Yeah I would most definitely dress all 5 receivers. The only reason being is that they are mostly banged up.

 

[irishfanatic]

Just one more "sleep". C'mon already

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yeah I would most definitely dress all 5 receivers. The only reason being is that they are mostly banged up.

Undressed receivers will result in huge draft pick penalties on the Patriots

 

[patfanken]

I hope so too, but using Michael Floyd as the example of why we should be excited probably isn't the best choice.

I know what you're saying and I agree with you. At the same time there's absolutely nothing wrong with showing the difference in Brady's production with and without our biggest weapon, and how people haven't noticed as much because the team keeps winning and relying so heavily on Edelman.

I never said anyone should be "excited" by Floyd. What I was looking for was someone who could present a big, big physical, fast receiver that could present similar problems as Gronk did when he split out wide. Floyd does that. He is a guy you can't cover with a LB out wide. Similarly he can be a guy that from the slot (where Gronk often lined up) could present a big receiver with speed threat to the seam routes.

Now 6'3 225 with mediocre hands is NOT 6'6, 265 with outstanding hands, but it's as close as we got on this team, and it COULD force the Steelers to cover him seriously or create mismatches. This isn't an outstanding secondary to begin with.

Another thought would be to use Bennett in all the Gronk routes, and use Lengel in the Jesse James inline TE role. Hopefully Bennett will be closer to his top speed for this game.

But in the end, I never meant to imply Floyd is the answer, just that he could be part of the solution

 

[luuked]

Similarly he can be a guy that from the slot (where Gronk often lined up) could present a big receiver with speed threat to the seam routes.

That has been one of my main hopes as well. I am surprised we have not used him more on those Gronk-esque seam routes.