Why don’t you give a crap about TD catches? Especially since he has always been an amazing red zone target and now he’s anything but.
Before I answer for him, answer me this so we're on the same page: Why do we dismiss low-N quirks in other sports statistics contexts with "small sample size!"? What is it about small sample sizes that make them dismiss-able?Why don’t you give a crap about TD catches? Especially since he has always been an amazing red zone target and now he’s anything but.
Pretty much this. I don’t even play fantasy so it’s got shit to do with that. If I take one for rest of season it’s Kelce, if for no other reason than I expect him to be on the field more. I don’t think Gronk is toast, but he’s clearly banged up.I do not care about fantasy sports for the purpose of this discussion. Admittedly I haven’t rewatched any games and probably caught maybe 4-5 of the Chiefs games. Gronk has certainly had his moments this year. Going into the year I would have said Gronk. He’s still a great tight end this year even a little stiff and hobbled. I’d put Gronk behind one guy for a hypothetical rest of the year, Kelce. Kelce is healthier and has played better this year. Even if Gronk rebounds and takes back that #1 spot he has the greater injury concern. That’s why it’s Kelce to me. But only Kelce. We’re talking about who has the better A paper here.
When there are other data points that make you think, like the low amount of red zone targets he’s getting thus year compared to years past through 9 games, which is a significant sample size IMO in football and takes into account other concerning factors that his N is only 7 (I think), which brings into account other concerns. Why isn’t he catching TDs? Because he’s not getting targets in the red zone. Why isn’t that happening? I don’t watch in enough detail to speak to but there are concerning enough answers to that question.Before I answer for him, answer me this so we're on the same page: Why do we dismiss low-N quirks in other sports statistics contexts with "small sample size!"? What is it about small sample sizes that make them dismiss-able?
Well, I wasn't being smarmy with my question. We have a lot of data points if the question is about plays that Gronk is on the field for. Something analyzing the totality of his play this year is approaching statistical significance. We have very few data points, however, if the question is about plays in which the Patriots score a touchdown (or even "could easily have scored a touchdown") that Gronk is on the field for.When there are other data points that make you think, like the low amount of red zone targets he’s getting thus year compared to years past through 9 games, which is a significant sample size IMO in football and takes into account other concerning factors that his N is only 7 (I think), which brings into account other concerns. Why isn’t he catching TDs? Because he’s not getting targets in the red zone. Why isn’t that happening? I don’t watch in enough detail to speak to but there are concerning enough answers to that question.
I think that’s what you’re asking but I’m confused because it’s unnecessarily coated in vague statistics language for some reason instead of asking me the direct question you want me to answer.
Yes, this is the fewest targets he's had in a 7 game stretch in his career (if I've cobbled together info correctly) - unless you count the 1 target he had from 12/31/17 through 10/14/18.Two red zone targets for a guy who averages over 1.2 per game and closer to 1.5 in full years he has played sure seems potentially statistically significant. Maybe we could find other years where this would simply reflect an expected valley among the peaks in an ordinary distribution.
7 is too small for firm conclusions, but it is worth watching and close to rising to the level of anomalous.
What it means though is a different question. It could well mean something about the team and not Gronk.
I would agree with you more if they were going elsewhere and having more success. Brady has 30 drop backs within the 10, and is 11 for 27 for 58 yards with 3 sacks. Their completion %, TD %, first down %, NY/A, etc. are all below average, and no QB has been sacked more in that area. If they were efficient despite throwing to Gronk, I would agree with you, but they haven't been very efficient, and they haven't been throwing to the TE at all (Gronk has one target within the 10, neither Allen nor Hollister have any). It's weird.4.) That said, he is still very good, and part of it is probably just that Brady has a lot of good options right now. White being awesome doesn't take away from Gronk, but these plays aren't happening in isolation, they are context-dependent and Brady just has a lot of places to put the ball these days.
Others have already answered for me, but the reason I wrote this is that I don't think you can extricate anything meaningful from Gronk's lack of TD catches given: (1) small sample size; (2) the fact that defenses were draped all over him in weeks 1-3 with no other credible red zone threats on the field. It wouldn't shock me if he was in decline— he does look a step slower and a bit more banged up— but the TD catches doesn't tell us much imo.Why don’t you give a crap about TD catches? Especially since he has always been an amazing red zone target and now he’s anything but.
He's definitely not getting the incentives now.He's out again tomorrow.
As I posted in the gamethread...we potentially don’t need him until a week after the bye week as we play the J-E-T-S after the bye. That would give him until December 2 against Minnesota. Then at Miami...always a tough game then the very important at Pittsburg game.He's out again tomorrow.
At this point, I would be pretty surprised if he doesn’t. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an IR trip before year end. Back injuries are nasty.He's definitely not getting the incentives now.
Still think he's going to retire at the end of the year.
Good, that means the Pats get their money back against the cap next year. Win win if he’s healthy for the big games.He's definitely not getting the incentives now.
Allen is not even the receiver he was in Indianapolis. He looks much slower in routes than he used to.It would be kind of nice if they used Gronk's absence as an opportunity to build some chemistry between Brady and Allen. I'm not asking for Ben Coates numbers, just like a 4 catches for 45 yards and a couple first downs would make me feel better if Gronk's issues linger all season. His current NE high is 2 catches for 26.
He tore his hamstring, right? Those can take 2-3 months, if bad.Jacob Hollister come on down...Oh that’s right, he’s apparently Mr Glass.
Hamstring to start, then healed and played Jacksonville, then had a chest injury, and now a hamstring againHe tore his hamstring, right? Those can take 2-3 months, if bad.
Gronk's cap hit of $12 MM is fine if he's 2017 Gronk. I guess we'll see how he finishes the year.Tom E. Curran was on the Dan Patrick Show today and says he doesn't think there's any way Gronk will be a Patriot next year due to his cap hit. "They'll go as far as to wheel him out of town on a dolly if they have to." FWIW, they would save $10 million on the 2019 cap if they moved on from him.
Anyone available in the draft? Any chance Noah Fant falls far enough? Pats are well positioned to get some help there.Gronk's cap hit of $12 MM is fine if he's 2017 Gronk. I guess we'll see how he finishes the year.
The other problem is a lack of alternatives. Hollister's still under contract but he hasn't done much. Allen is on the books for $7.4 MM; can't see him playing for that. They drafted Ryan Izzo in the 7th; he's more of a blocking guy. What does this team's skill position group look like next year?
I haven't re-watched all the games, but I wouldn't be surprised if - especially during the first four games of the season - teams doubled Gronk constantly, knowing that Brady didn't have Edelman to rely on, and no other receiver really represented a major threat.With regard to Gronk, as someone else noted, it’s not his lack of TDs that’s particularly troubling it’s his lack of targets. Either teams have figured out a way to take him away (which would be new, they never have been able to) or something is legit wrong. The latter there is obviously more troubling.
...assuming he actually gets healthy.Julio Jones just caught his first TD pass of the season in week 9, despite having, at the time, nearly 900 yards. Sometimes TDs can just be fluky.
Most of us, at one time or another, have said some variation of "As long as Gronk is healthy down the stretch and for the postseason, I'm good". Well, looks like we're gonna test that theory.
Lack of targets doesn't suggest much to me. As has been sayin in this thread there are various reasons why that might be the case.I honestly can’t speak to if he’s been staying in to block more or if defenses have found some way, but if they aren’t going to him it suggests to me there’s a physical problem. Either injury or just burning out. Ymmv.
To each their own. This thread isn’t about their overall production in the red zone, it’s about Gronk. When you start ignoring the biggest and best red zone threat in the league - especially when Edelman was out for four of those games; Burkhead has been out but still has more; and they didn’t have Gordon for five of those - it suggests to me he isn’t as effective for some reason. Two targets through seven games raises a red flag for me. Hope I’m wrong.Lack of targets doesn't suggest much to me. As has been sayin in this thread there are various reasons why that might be the case.
Could be a physical issue, could also be Issues just doing something different. They are producing in the red zone so whatever they are doing it is working.
And we are still only discussing 7 games
Numbers suggest to me that others have been as effective if not more than Gronk. If the team was less effective and still not targeting Gronk than I might agree with you. But their overall success rate suggests there are likely other factors involved.To each their own. This thread isn’t about their overall production in the red zone, it’s about Gronk. When you start ignoring the biggest and best red zone threat in the league - especially when Edelman was out for four of those games; Burkhead has been out but still has more; and they didn’t have Gordon for five of those - it suggests to me he isn’t as effective for some reason. Two targets through seven games raises a red flag for me. Hope I’m wrong.
He might not be as effective - that's totally possible. He's 29 and has been very beat up over the course of his career. I still think that his size and strength and catch radius make him a great target, unless they're doubling him constantly.To each their own. This thread isn’t about their overall production in the red zone, it’s about Gronk. When you start ignoring the biggest and best red zone threat in the league - especially when Edelman was out for four of those games; Burkhead has been out but still has more; and they didn’t have Gordon for five of those - it suggests to me he isn’t as effective for some reason. Two targets through seven games raises a red flag for me. Hope I’m wrong.
Well, we've nailed the first part--sitting out early and mid-season games....assuming he actually gets healthy.
Yeah but what is the overall completion % in the red zone? It ain't 70%.Numbers suggest to me that others have been as effective if not more than Gronk. If the team was less effective and still not targeting Gronk than I might agree with you. But their overall success rate suggests there are likely other factors involved.
Edit: And where are we getting that Gronk is the best red zone target in the league? Everything I've seen had him around 50% catch percentage in the red zone the last couple years
True dat.Well, we've nailed the first part--sitting out early and mid-season games.
I mean I don’t know. His base salary is 9 million. If he comes back and has a strong end to the season, I think they’d play out the contract. Will Gronk come back and play for 9 million might be the bigger question.
Curran on Gronk: "I don't think there's any chance he's back next year. They'll put him on a dolly and wheel him out of town if they have to." #Patriots
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. Would you prefer I say ‘one of best’? Is there someone bigger I’m missing? I’m not sure how what’s up for debate. He’s over 61% reception rate, with 129 targets in red zone in 109 games with 55 tds in his career, not including playoffs. He has two targets and zero catches in seven games this year. If you don’t think that’s some kind of anomaly, then good on ya. I disagree. Something is different.Numbers suggest to me that others have been as effective if not more than Gronk. If the team was less effective and still not targeting Gronk than I might agree with you. But their overall success rate suggests there are likely other factors involved.
Edit: And where are we getting that Gronk is the best red zone target in the league? Everything I've seen had him around 50% catch percentage in the red zone the last couple years