Gronkowski = brittle bitch

[NEPatsfan]

Also if you are talking about Lewis as the guy I'm leaving out we have no clue how big or little the impact he will make. They have been using White in his role anyway this year with pretty good success so Lewis' impact while it will help won't make up for the loss of a healthy Gronk.

Nice try, but no you can't parse player for player. It's the cumulative effect of the weapons that didn't exist in years past when Gronk was hurt.

 

[NEPatsfan]

The Patriots are obviously not just Gronk (just like the Chiefs weren't just Justin Houston, or the Broncos' Von Miller, and so on and so forth) but it makes the Pats significantly more vulnerable in the near term to teams like the Ravens, Broncos, and an improving Dolphins team. If he can't return right away in the playoffs, it makes life a lot easier for whichever team gets to play the Pats.

Exaggerative viewing from past years.

That isn't the case this year.

 

[Money]

And who will they need him against going forward from now till the AFC title game? That's kind of the point, they don't.

Would love to have him, but his loss this year isn't like years past, based on the other weapons they have, Bennet, Lewis, et al, and the return of the OL coach. The drop off is much smaller compared to years past when the team had less weapons.

They lost the only game where they truly needed him. It's certainly something they will have to overcome when the competition gets better. My pick to beat them in the playoffs is Pittsburgh.

 

[NEPatsfan]

They lost the only game where they truly needed him. It's certainly something they will have to overcome when the competition gets better. My pick to beat them in the playoffs is Pittsburgh.

Would be a tough matchup, but you are assuming they make the playoffs. Going to be tough to do if they don't win the division.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

Exaggerative viewing from past years.

That isn't the case this year.

Not really. Doesn't have to be disastrous per se. Merely has to be true that Gronk is really fucking good and arguably the premier matchup nightmare in football when healthy. Pats could very plausibly win out. I am just saying the odds of losing to a team like the Ravens, Broncos, or the Dolphins have gone up significantly. Not underdogs in any of those games maybe sure, but it's not out of the question like some on this board thought just a few short weeks ago.

 

[Money]

Would be a tough matchup, but you are assuming they make the playoffs. Going to be tough to do if they don't win the division.

Right...I'm assuming they beat the Ravens out (as they are the better team). Obviously rooting differently though.

 

[cdumler7]

Nice try, but no you can't parse player for player. It's the cumulative effect of the weapons that didn't exist in years past when Gronk was hurt.

I get that they have other weapons. They have had other weapons in the past. Not like this is the first weapon filled Pats team in the past 6-7 years. Guys like Edelman, Welker, Hernandez, Amendola, Lloyd, Woodhead, and some others. No they have not been the top of the class weapons in the NFL but I wouldnt' call the unit they have this year that either. Some of the guys you are talking about haven't even produced 300 yards of offense this year. So while they are good complimentary players you are now asking them to bump up in the pecking order and have to make a bigger impact while having tougher coverage against them.

Again you can keep saying Gronk hasn't been the impact player this year but when he was healthy the numbers are easy to see this Patriots offense was maybe the best in the NFL. Without him they have played like a middle of the pack offense.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Not really. Doesn't have to be disastrous per se. Merely has to be true that Gronk is really fucking good and arguably the premier matchup nightmare in football when healthy. Pats could very plausibly win out. I am just saying the odds of losing to a team like the Ravens, Broncos, or the Dolphins have gone up significantly. Not underdogs in any of those games maybe sure, but it's not out of the question like some on this board thought just a few short weeks ago.

I think you are making the same mistake that most are by viewing it through previous years glasses.

He's a great player, but his loss isn't as impactful on this years team due to the weapons they have now that they didn't have in years past. For example they still have a TE1 on the team, which they didn't have before. That alone makes his loss minimal when compared to years past.

 

[NEPatsfan]

I get that they have other weapons. They have had other weapons in the past. Not like this is the first weapon filled Pats team in the past 6-7 years. Guys like Edelman, Welker, Hernandez, Amendola, Lloyd, Woodhead, and some others. No they have not been the top of the class weapons in the NFL but I wouldnt' call the unit they have this year that either. Some of the guys you are talking about haven't even produced 300 yards of offense this year. So while they are good complimentary players you are now asking them to bump up in the pecking order and have to make a bigger impact while having tougher coverage against them.

Again you can keep saying Gronk hasn't been the impact player this year but when he was healthy the numbers are easy to see this Patriots offense was maybe the best in the NFL. Without him they have played like a middle of the pack offense.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I think you are making the same mistake that most are by viewing it through previous years glasses.

He's a great player, but his loss isn't as impactful on this years team due to the weapons they have now that they didn't have in years past. For example they still have a TE1 on the team, which they didn't have before. That alone makes his loss minimal when compared to years past.

I'd argue the impact is largely the same, Gronk on the field vs no Gronk. The Pats having more talent to pick up the slack would be besides the point for me.

 

[NEPatsfan]

I'd argue the impact is largely the same, Gronk on the field vs no Gronk. The Pats having more talent to pick up the slack would be besides the point for me.

I don't agree. I think this years talent softens the blow significantly. Still sucks, but having a TE1 ready to go makes a huge difference.

 

[NEPatsfan]

@cdumler7

This years stats for Gronk.

Notice they did just fine without him? And notice Brady's return had a lot to do with it too?

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I don't agree. I think this years talent softens the blow significantly. Still sucks, but having a TE1 ready to go makes a huge difference.

You may be correct in terms of wins and losses with the upcoming schedule in the regular season, we will just have to see. Against some of the potential matchups in the playoffs if Gronk is out or clearly not 100%? I don't know. That is where this would get trickier.

 

[cdumler7]

Keep telling yourself that.

You have produced nothing other than listing a bunch of players' names that outside of New England hardly anybody has ever heard of to replace the production of Gronk. You keep saying he hasn't made the same impact this year but again I"ve shown you in the games where he was finally healthy from his early season injury he dominated like he always has and going into the Seattle game had 3 straight games with a touchdown. He was getting back to his old self and being maybe the biggest impact player outside of a QB on the offensive side of the ball in the NFL. You can deny that but just show me one thing that shows this team is fine without him other than record. And if we want to look at record the 2 games they lost were 2 he was banged up in. IN the 4 games he was finally healthy hey look they were 4-0 producing 34 points a game. You are just going by the hope that these other players will be huge impact guys for the Patriots. Well those impact players you speak of other than Mitchell didn't really do much in this past game and the Patriots offense struggled to score. It looked like the Jets were going to upset them and probably should have.

 

[NEPatsfan]

You may be correct in terms of wins and losses with the upcoming schedule in the regular season, we will just have to see. Against some of the potential matchups in the playoffs if Gronk is out or clearly not 100%? I don't know. That is where this would get trickier.

I don't think so. I think to many people live in the days of stout defenses, which don't exist anymore.

 

[NEPatsfan]

You have produced nothing other than listing a bunch of players' names that outside of New England hardly anybody has ever heard of to replace the production of Gronk. You keep saying he hasn't made the same impact this year but again I"ve shown you in the games where he was finally healthy from his early season injury he dominated like he always has and going into the Seattle game had 3 straight games with a touchdown. He was getting back to his old self and being maybe the biggest impact player outside of a QB on the offensive side of the ball in the NFL. You can deny that but just show me one thing that shows this team is fine without him other than record. And if we want to look at record the 2 games they lost were 2 he was banged up in. IN the 4 games he was finally healthy hey look they were 4-0 producing 34 points a game. You are just going by the hope that these other players will be huge impact guys for the Patriots. Well those impact players you speak of other than Mitchell didn't really do much in this past game and the Patriots offense struggled to score. It looked like the Jets were going to upset them and probably should have.

Cherry picker!

The key to those high scoring games was Brady's return, yet you somehow manage to leave that out and try to make it that it was Gronk that caused it.

 

[cdumler7]

@cdumler7

This years stats for Gronk.

Notice they did just fine without him? And notice Brady's return had a lot to do with it too?

View attachment 151973

Man you are having trouble understanding what people are saying here. Nobody has said the Pats can't win without him. Not a single poster. They have said they are more vulnerable to losing especially in the playoffs without him. And just look at that 4 game stretch again when he got healthy. He averaged 118 yards per game receiving and almost a touchdown a game when he was finally healthy. More importantly the offense averaged almost 9 points more per game during that stretch than the 3 games since he got hurt where Brady was the QB and all those "weapons" you speak of have played.

 

[cdumler7]

Cherry picker!

The key to those high scoring games was Brady's return, yet you somehow manage to leave that out and try to make it that it was Gronk that caused it.

So why have they averaged 9 points less per game since Gronk got hurt in the Seattle game? Hmmmmm

 

[Fountain City Blues]

I don't think so. I think to many people live in the days of stout defenses, which don't exist anymore.

I disagree- I think your view on this is skewed since the Pats have enjoyed Brady for the past decade and a half now. Bledsoe before that just for giggles. Could name several safeties that are plenty capable of covering Bennett in the playoffs. There are zero even with double or even triple brackets for Gronk.

 

[NEPatsfan]

Man you are having trouble understanding what people are saying here. Nobody has said the Pats can't win without him. Not a single poster. They have said they are more vulnerable to losing especially in the playoffs without him. And just look at that 4 game stretch again when he got healthy. He averaged 118 yards per game receiving and almost a touchdown a game when he was finally healthy. More importantly the offense averaged almost 9 points more per game during that stretch than the 3 games since he got hurt where Brady was the QB and all those "weapons" you speak of have played.

I understand it perfectly. It's you that isn't understanding. Gronk's loss is not as impactful as you want it to be.

Funny how you only pick those three games, and fail to mention that Brady's was a massive factor in those games.

Cherry picker!