But how can you call something a mistake when it clearly didn't harm the team? Yes, Gordon isn't a perfect player. I am aware. However, to assert that it was a mistake to sign him is to say that the team was appreciably worse off with him than without him and I feel there is no evidence to make that case.

Same with this AB deal. If it doesn't work out, it will likely not have any real appreciable negative impact on the team. If it does work out, it will likely have a hugely positive impact on the team. That is generally what you would call a good gamble.

Pats averaged 301.8 passing yards per game with him in the lineup, and 226.2 without. Averaged 30.7 PPG with him on the roster and 21.5 without. New England did win without him, but he was hardly a mistake: They were a demonstrably better passing offense with him in the lineup.

All I want right now is to see AB on the Pats sideline when they play the Steelers. I just need to see the faces.

The Pats currently have Antonio Brown invalid for week 1, N'keal Harry on IR, and Gronk possibly waiting to un-retire. If Steelers can't at least stay within 10pts, the NFL is doomed.

He is wasting the Patriots time and resources. 

This is what I hate about nfl stats.  They are meaningless.  Think about it, if a team plays like 4 crappy defenses in a row (or is in a division with a bunch of crappy teams) they are talked up as some offensive juggernaut.  Every team is different and they don’t play every team each year.  There are far too many variables to account for to say one teams performance is because they had one player in their lineup for these games.  You can’t break down a team performance without also accounting for the different teams they were playing against, the time of year, injuries to other players, weather, etc.  Way too many variables to account for.

Picking up Brown was a great decision. We're winning another super bowl bois.

I mean, sure, there's always the chance for extreme outlying cases to come into play. That's why it's worth getting a decent sample size, and 10 games vs. 9 games is, generally speaking, a pretty reasonable selection size. Your odds of the ten games that one player stuck around for just being really shitty teams, and the 9 games he didn't being defensive juggernauts is pretty small, on average. The point of the post is more to demonstrate that there's no grounds for calling him a mistake: Even in a limited sample size, there's no evidence that he made New England worse.

That being said, to add some context, here's the passing defense ranks of the teams NE played with and without Gordon.

With: 21, 16, 31, 7, 1, 12, 6, 24, 3, 21

Without: 28, 2, 8, 10, 24, 9, 31, 14

Not a ton of variation there. Obviously things can change from one part of the season to the next, but again, the point is more that there's no reason to believe Gordon was a detriment.

Are you joking? The Patriots aren't a small high school team with like one WR coach who has to chose who to focus on. They've got the staff size to handle everyone. What resources could they possibly be wasting here? Money? He's got a cap hit of $2 million, literally 1/100th of the current cap. For that price, he's easily worth ten good games.

I certainly agree that Gordon wasn’t a detriment and was in fact a positive.  I just don’t like stats that try to say a team averaged more points because one player was in their lineup.  There is just too many variables to really lay that at one players feet.  

Didn't Randy Moss wise up for year or two with Patriots.  Patriots will make a child act like a grown man when they realize they have a legitimate shot at the Super Bowl.