Karen Guregian's faulty logic

[Rob0729]

From her article today talking about the impact of Warren's loss and how he affects wins and losses:

All told, in the three games Warren missed last year, the Pats were 1-2. In 2008, he also missed three games (vs. the Jets, Steelers, Seahawks), and the team went 1-2 in those games. So without Warren the past two years, the Pats are 2-4.

Ty Warren loss is a ‘crime’ - BostonHerald.com

The three games the Pats played last year without Warren were Indy, Houston, and Buffalo. The Pats held Indy to 97 yards rushing and got killed late in the game in the air by Manning. The thing is Warren would have probably been on the sidelines for a lionshare of those passing plays.

In 2008, the reason why the Pats lost that game was because the offense and special teams were so bad. Cassel was 19 for 39 for 169 yards, no TDS, and 2 INTs (plus he was strip sacked). The only TD drive the Pats had was when they started on the Steelers' 14. Seventeen of the Steelers point came off of turnovers that gave them offensive drives that started in New England's territory (One TD drive was a two play, one yard drive that started on the New England one and the other TD drive off a muffed return started on the New England eight).

Against the Jets that year, it was also the Pats inability to stop the pass especially in overtime that hurt the Pats along with not being able to run the ball (Matt Cassel was the team's leading rusher in that game with 62 yards). Again, Warren would have been on the sidelines for a lot of those plays.

To say that Warren is the reason why the Pats went 2-4 over the last two years when he was out of the game is ignorant of what happened in the games. You can point to many issues that Warren would have no control of that were the main causes for those losses.

 

[TheComeback]

Surprise, surprise. More lazy, negative reporting from Boston media outlets. God forbid these people actually do their jobs and spend more than five minutes researching before they write a column.

 

[Hardboiled]

Forget the context, the numbers back her up.

This year, we're going 5.33 wins and 10.66 losses. Deal with it.

 

[Calciumee]

Seems like she has taken a stat; and taken it as the reason that stat happened. And not looked at it in depth.

Lazy reporting.

 

[the wrothbroughterer]

Small sample size argument says hello.

 

[Metaphors]

In the last 2 years, the Pats have gone 10-7 with Brady and 11-5 without him.

Last year, the Pats were 2-0 with Tate and only 8-7 without him.

More Tate, less Brady, undefeated season. Stats are fun!