Rob Gronkowski versus Jason Witten: Who had the better game?

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Gronk's game was better, but I'd say Witten's was more impressive. He's playing a better defense, his team was down the whole game and each reception was that much more important than Gronk's. He put his team on his back in a very crucial situation basically, it was an MVP performance.

 

[Satchboogie3]

The OP's example isn't a very good example as the question should be greater yards per play vs greater efficiency. Clearly Gronk had the better game without including the TDs as he was much much more efficient while gaining nearly as much yardage. Now if he had been targeted a lot more then it would made Witten's contributions more valuable. Add in the fact that he did have the 2 TDs and it isn't even close.

The next question is about the supporting cast. Witten moved the chains all game while Gronk had the big plays. To get the most value out of an efficient big-play receiver you need complimentary players to keep moving the chains when they aren't getting targeted. The reason our offense in '07 was nearly unstoppable wasn't just because of Moss, but because we also had Welker/etc to keep the chains moving on the majority of the passes that weren't thrown Moss's way.

So the question could be: would you rather have an efficient receiver who catches a lot of passes underneath for small gains or a big-play receiver who is also efficient, but can only get targeted for a small percentage of the plays. The answer is completely dependent on the supporting cast.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Whitten probably is the 'correct' choice,

You cant be serious. You ever hear the term quality over quantity? Whitten caught a bunch of tiny passes and scored no TDS in a losing effort. People are right we do have the worst fans. Fans that look for pimples on supermodels' butts. Half of our fans are as good as any in sports the rest are self-hating hand wringing sissy nannies.

 

[Satchboogie3]

You cant be serious. You ever hear the term quality over quantity? Whitten caught a bunch of tiny passes and scored no TDS in a losing effort. People are right we do have the worst fans. Fans that look for pimples on supermodels' butts. Half of our fans are as good as any in sports the rest are self-hating hand wringing sissy nannies.

Way to completely ignore the question posed.

 

[PatsDeb]

You cant be serious. You ever hear the term quality over quantity? Whitten caught a bunch of tiny passes and scored no TDS in a losing effort. People are right we do have the worst fans. Fans that look for pimples on supermodels' butts. Half of our fans are as good as any in sports the rest are self-hating hand wringing sissy nannies.

LOL which are you?

 

[Deus Irae]

You cant be serious. You ever hear the term quality over quantity? Whitten caught a bunch of tiny passes and scored no TDS in a losing effort. People are right we do have the worst fans. Fans that look for pimples on supermodels' butts. Half of our fans are as good as any in sports the rest are self-hating hand wringing sissy nannies.

Of course I'm serious. And your post is nothing even approaching a rebuttal, so I'll take it with the grain of salt it deserves. Frankly, I don't think it's even worth that much, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

IMO, it's Welker. Moving the chains is of greater value to most offenses: it lets you win the TOP battle, rest your defense, and wear out opposing defenses.

Thing is, though, if you want to use the "Which would improve a team more" argument, you have to ask "What's already there?"

For what the Patriots apparently want to do, Welker is clearly the better option. But I can see a fair number of teams where a Jackson type would be superior.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One thing I can say: it'll be interesting to see what Football Outsiders has to say tomorrow.

Coming into Week 8, GRONK had 113 DYAR (measure of total value) [2nd in NFL, 12 behind Gonzalez], and 25.0% DVOA (measure of per-play value) [5th in NFL].

Witten had 64 DYAR [8th] and 12.8% DVOA [14th].

 

[VJCPatriot]

This is NOT based on observing the game, but rather, it is based on the statistics of these two players only. It also not based on Romo, Brady, supporting casts, coaching, or outcomes. It is more of a philosophical question. If you saw both of these stat lines and knew nothing about the game, which player's production would you presume led to a greater chance of victory?

Also, touchdowns are irrelevant for the sake of this analysis.

Can anyone read?

That's like saying you should discount any homeruns when comparing baseball players.

Based on these stats who would you say had the better offensive season in 2012?

Player A .280 batting average 152 hits
Player B .316 batting average 216 hits

Who helped their team more and had the better season?

But now let's look at the actual WHOLE picture

Player A .280 batting average 152 hits 42 homeruns - Edwin Encarnacion
Player B .316 batting average 216 hits 15 homeruns - Derek Jeter

Yeah, disallowing consideration of touchdowns is just as bad as disallowing consideration of homeruns. Those plays directly affect the scoreboard, vs just advancing field position or getting on the basepaths into scoring position. It just does not work.

Gronk had a dominating day, and taking his 2 TDs out of the equation does not allow for a realistic evaluation of his impact on the game. He is a dominant redzone target who is already in the top 10 of all-time in receiving TDs in his first 3 seasons. Don't discount the ability to score TDs because it just does not allow for realistic evaluation of offensive value.

BTW didn't you already unearth a small clue onto whose value is more important?

Gronk - Yards per target: 11.23

Witten- Yards per target: 7.59

Gronk by definition had a more efficient outing. Each time you targeted Gronk your average reward per play nets a 1st down or better. Witten could leave you short of the 1st down. Even with the gimped criteria of not counting actual scoring ability, it's obvious that if BOTH players were options on the same team in the same game with the above results, you'd want to toss it at Gronk every time over Witten if you could. He's that MUCH better of an option.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's like saying you should discount any homeruns when comparing baseball players.

Based on these stats who would you say had the better offensive season in 2012?

Player A .280 batting average 152 hits
Player B .316 batting average 216 hits

Who helped their team more and had the better season?

But now let's look at the actual WHOLE picture

Player A .280 batting average 152 hits 42 homeruns - Edwin Encarnacion
Player B .316 batting average 216 hits 15 homeruns - Derek Jeter

Yeah, disallowing consideration of touchdowns is just as bad as disallowing consideration of homeruns. Those plays directly affect the scoreboard, vs just advancing field position or getting on the basepaths into scoring position. It just does not work.

Gronk had a dominating day, and taking his 2 TDs out of the equation does not allow for a realistic evaluation of his impact on the game. He is a dominant redzone target who is already in the top 10 of all-time in receiving TDs in his first 3 seasons. Don't discount the ability to score TDs because it just does not allow for realistic evaluation of offensive value.

BTW didn't you already unearth a small clue onto whose value is more important?

Gronk - Yards per target: 11.23

Witten- Yards per target: 7.59

Gronk by definition had a more efficient outing. Each time you targeted Gronk your average reward per play nets a 1st down or better. Witten could leave you short of the 1st down. Even with the gimped criteria of not counting actual scoring ability, it's obvious that if BOTH players were options on the same team in the same game with the above results, you'd want to toss it at Gronk every time over Witten if you could. He's that MUCH better of an option.

You've assumed that I'm not interested in touchdowns in evaluating the value of players, but that is not the case. The focus of this question was about targets, receptions, and yardage distribution. That is why I purposely narrowed the focus and clearly stated that the question is focused only around the given stat-lines, including only targets, receptions, and yardage distributions.

Your last paragraph is a good answer to the question. However, I would ask this: if we are basing the effectiveness of an offensive player in efficient yardage gained (average per target, or average per reception), then why should teams run the ball besides in goal-line situations? The best running games in the NFL average less yards per attempt than the worst passing games... so, wouldn't it stand to reason that there is some value in smaller chunks of yardage at a more consistent pace?

I am just trying to understand the offensive philosophy behind the game of football.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

Of course I'm serious. And your post is nothing even approaching a rebuttal, so I'll take it with the grain of salt it deserves. Frankly, I don't think it's even worth that much, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Let me tell you a little story that proves my point,a parable if you will.

When I was but a lad of 18 I was working nightshift at a gas station in a sleepy little town in Virginia. It was slow as you can imagine and the cashier lady got out some cards and started constructing a very big house with them. It was quite the impressive feat I must say. Not to be showed up by a girl,I got out some cards of my own. Knowing I had neither her skill or patience I began taking sets of 2 cards and making a bunch of little Teepees. She laughed at me and asked me what the hell I was doing. I explained to her this: "You can built a great big beautiful house but I can make a whole village." She rightly laughed at the absurdity of my comments.

So anyway if you hadn't guess she was the Gronk of my story and I was the Whitten.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let me ... Whitten.

...And another troll goes to the ignore list.

 

[Ive_Killed_People]

...And another troll goes to the ignore list.

If I was a troll I might actually care. You're just mad because I'm right. Every single fact disputes what you say, yet you still chose a has been Cowboy over the most dominant TE to ever live who happens to be on the team that you supposedly root for. A troll is someone who has thousands of posts on a forum of a team they obviously root against.

 

[Lansdowne]

Using ONLY these stats:

21 less yards and 10 less receptions = greater efficiency.

Greater chance of victory must be Gronk.

Yup. Given the averages, if Gronk had as many targets as Witten, he would have many more yards.

Edit- VJCPatriot said it better than I ever could.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Honestly, who cares "who had the better GAME"?

And "my daddy can beat up your daddy!"

The only thing that is important is the fact Gronk is much better than Witten....hands down better.

But then again, he's hands down better than any tight end in the NFL.

And....he's a Patriot and Witten isn't. So aren't we fortunate?

 

[chasa]

Regardless of stats, gronk left with the W. that's all that matters to me.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I don't get the win/loss portion of the debate. They are one player out of 40+ on the field. Gronk has the better team, Gronk was playing a much worse team. Not to mention Gronk's team has Brady and Witten's team has Tony Romo

 

[PatriotsReign]

If I was a troll I might actually care. You're just mad because I'm right. Every single fact disputes what you say, yet you still chose a has been Cowboy over the most dominant TE to ever live who happens to be on the team that you supposedly root for. A troll is someone who has thousands of posts on a forum of a team they obviously root against.

FYI...I've killed people who have killed people.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

One other point worth noting here: out of Witten's catches, only 7 of them produced first downs (most of the rest, though, did put the Cowboys into manageable situations like 3rd-and-1 or 2nd-and-4. Every one of GRONK's catches either produced a first down or a touchdown.

 

[PatsFan2]

Jason Witten-- 22 targets, 18 receptions, 167 yards

I guess that's a great game for a tortoise...Jason Witten = Sloooowwww.
If Gronk caught hat many balls his totals would be close to 300yds.