Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    I actually agree with you Megatool. Because Gronk has been mostly absent when we've needed him most anyway.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Yes, things have changed since earlier in the season as you note. 

    However, gronk's value is much bigger,than a great red zone threat. With him in the lineup, you have a dual threat weapon...great blocker, great pass catcher. You can run or pass in different formations with him. You can only say something similar with Vereen, with his ability to run or lineup wide or in the slot. Our remaining TEs don't off that flexibility to the offense. 

    devastating? We will see this week when we face a good Miami defense. 

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    yup. not like they only get to play with 10 men the rest of the season.

    Boyce, Vereen, Amendola, and even Devlin are now contributing that was not true earlier when Gronk was out. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually agree with you Megatool. Because Gronk has been mostly absent when we've needed him most anyway.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why the namecalling?  See, this is where your allies are hypocrites. They claim only I namecall, but you initiate it every time.

    Always go to the source, folks, and you'll not only look more intelligent but you won't be a hypocrite.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Megatool is a term of endearment from Babe.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from cyncalpatfan. Show cyncalpatfan's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's not "devastating" if one doesn't care about winning a SB or when a team has a top 5 defense in points against, top 10-15 in pass defense, top 10 in 3rd down defense, or top 10 in red zone defense.  Regular season records mean nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    The thing about RG is that he is a clutch player.  For me, that's what it's really all about.  We just need to hope that we have another clutch player who can step up.  Who knows?  With all of the new players we have this year, maybe that person is already here.  We are going to be finding out, soon enough.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    If devastating means you no longer have a chance then it is not devastating. If it means you have been seriously wounded as a team then yes the Pats have been seriously wounded.

    But as it was pointed out above, the development of other players and the availability of some like Amendola (at this time anyway!) does mean that this team has a wealth of depth to try to make the most of a bad situation.

    TB will need to get better, more consistent play from the O line. The O line will need to step up more in the running game as well. Especially as we have good RBs who can make a D play a t least a little more honest and so make TB and also play action more effective.

    It will take a supreme effort by players and coaches to win playoff games. But this is a team that if the O line rises to the ocassion no one will want to have to face if they could help it.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually agree with you Megatool. Because Gronk has been mostly absent when we've needed him most anyway.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why the namecalling?  See, this is where your allies are hypocrites. They claim only I namecall, but you initiate it every time.

    Always go to the source, folks, and you'll not only look more intelligent but you won't be a hypocrite.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How many times have I told you this dumbkoff..... many.

    Let me be clear.

    I will call YOU what you are; a LIAR an imbecile a tool and a moron, because you are those things. Change, and I'll stop.

    Every time I've thought you might be changing and becoming decent, you revert. So I no longer will be fooled by a brief dip into the pool of sanity by you.

    They can ban me for saying what you actually are and I'll be back in 5 minutes (like you). But saying exactly what you are will never stop as long as there is a way I can say it.

    Other than a couple of jets trolls I don't call anybody names other than you (and perhaps one or two of your fake accounts). Mostly I have put people I am likely to call names because they are stupid on ignore.

    Clear now?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I actually agree with you Megatool. Because Gronk has been mostly absent when we've needed him most anyway.

    [/QUOTE]

    Always go to the source, folks, and you'll not only look more intelligent but you won't be a hypocrite.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Take note fool. I NEVER complain about name calling.

    You use your hate speech and I will complain, not for me, but because it's wrong.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Babe the vaginaboy is up to his usual MO of throwing every offensive player under the bus in order to excuse Tom 'the love of his life' Brady from any responsibility when the offense has a sub par performance. If he can't find an offensive player to blame he'll attack the defense

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    "Why the namecalling?  See, this is where your allies are hypocrites. They claim only I namecall, but you initiate it every time."

    I'm nobody's ally in here, do my own thing, and I don't like the name calling and mockery from anyone to anyone. You have done it but you're hardly the only one by any means. It's not a good look when Babe does it either.

    The thing I have tried to get across is that if you feel a need to name call, it points to one of two things: 

    1. a problem with your head or an alert to others that you take this forum way too seirously

    2. an insecurity in your argument

    Rusty as for your Gronk view - I put it like this: I don't believe the Pats can win the Super Bowl without Gronk. However, depending on several factors including matchups, I do think the Pats could get to the Super Bowl without Gronk. 

    I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. 

    To be clear I think some of our other injuries have been equally bad but Gronk held the potential to rack up points, thereby covering other problems. I think really good defenses like the Ravens can now neutralize our other threats enough to hold us to the low 20s. We need to score 30 plus from here on our most games. 

    I also think with Gronk out the Pats have to take one more big chance on Ridley. We need playmakers at as many positions as possible at this point.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe the vaginaboy is up to his usual MO of throwing every offensive player under the bus in order to excuse Tom 'the love of his life' Brady from any responsibility when the offense has a sub par performance. If he can't find an offensive player to blame he'll attack the defense

    [/QUOTE]


    Hi Rusty, I mean vag face.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1. Vereen is here

    2. Amendola is healthier and further along

    3. The rookies are progressing in their own ways/further along

    Gronk's biggest absence will be in the red zone and with how you can dictate plays with his presence, but that does not mean our offense will falter either. Sunday's first half was proof of that.

    Discuss:

    [/QUOTE]


    Lets just ignore the little fact that his absense leaves the opponent's defense without one huge problem to deal with. He constantly drew double teams as well as the opponent's top DB or LB  leaving the other receivers with a better chance of getting open.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from glenr. Show glenr's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe the vaginaboy is up to his usual MO of throwing every offensive player under the bus in order to excuse Tom 'the love of his life' Brady from any responsibility when the offense has a sub par performance. If he can't find an offensive player to blame he'll attack the defense

    [/QUOTE]


    Hi Rusty, I mean vag face.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Poor baby never an original thought. Everyone who dares point out the stupidity of your posts is Rusty ( I bet you think Rusty killed JFK ) and you're too stupid to even think up an original comeback.  maybe you should permenently quit the board for the 40th time

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    1. Vereen is here

    2. Amendola is healthier and further along

    3. The rookies are progressing in their own ways/further along

    Gronk's biggest absence will be in the red zone and with how you can dictate plays with his presence, but that does not mean our offense will falter either. Sunday's first half was proof of that.

    Discuss:

    [/QUOTE]

    Weak..... What was offensive output before Gronk started playing? Where have these "rookies progressing" been since? Who's been targeted most during games? Without Grionk in nteh Red Zone, it'll be a struggle. Unless, of course, you profess that tyey eon't hav to orry abiout that aspect as they'll score from 21+ yards out. Oh, and there's The Ghost.... (perhaps you missed his last few FG attempts for way out beyond the Red Zone?)

    Amendola will NIOT cary the team, healthy or not. Edelman will be covered like 2nd skin, and those rookies will continue to drop passes, and/or miscommunicate with Brady on routes.

    As for the first halves, maybe you should have paid closer attention to the huge holes they have dug for themselves before "miracle comebacks" WITH Gronk.

    Did I mention Ridley and his inate ability to cough up the ball at inopportune times?

    But, fear not! All's well, ffensively, with the Pats! As that truly great American said: Good grief!

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, things have changed since earlier in the season as you note. 

    However, gronk's value is much bigger,than a great red zone threat. With him in the lineup, you have a dual threat weapon...great blocker, great pass catcher. You can run or pass in different formations with him. You can only say something similar with Vereen, with his ability to run or lineup wide or in the slot. Our remaining TEs don't off that flexibility to the offense. 

    devastating? We will see this week when we face a good Miami defense. 

    [/QUOTE]

     "when we face a good Miami defense"

    I tried this angle re: Miami's defense yesterday... got laughed at. Wanted to spare you the embarrassment.

    With Gronk out, they'll mop up the state of Flori-duh with the Fins!

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AZPAT. Show AZPAT's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    It's not "devastating" if one doesn't care about winning a SB or when a team has a top 5 defense in points against, top 10-15 in pass defense, top 10 in 3rd down defense, or top 10 in red zone defense.  Regular season records mean nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    If regular season records mean nothing, then, most assuredly, regular season stats don't amount to much either. Right? After all, your logic. Take the Texans.... #1 rated defense when we played 'em.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    I agree with OP.

    Vereen, Dobson, Thompkins, Boyce, Amendola, Edelman and Collie, plus Hooman, Mulligan, Williams and Develin - lots of possible targets. Ridley, Blount and Bolden can keep defenses honest.

    Run defense is a bigger issue than passing offense for this team, IMO. Siliga did a nice job last game of clogging up the middle though. Pass offense is OK.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to glenr's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to glenr's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Babe the vaginaboy is up to his usual MO of throwing every offensive player under the bus in order to excuse Tom 'the love of his life' Brady from any responsibility when the offense has a sub par performance. If he can't find an offensive player to blame he'll attack the defense




    Hi Rusty, I mean vag face.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Poor baby never an original thought. Everyone who dares point out the stupidity of your posts is Rusty ( I bet you think Rusty killed JFK ) and you're too stupid to even think up an original comeback.  maybe you should permenently quit the board for the 40th time

    [/QUOTE]


    I would like to slap you around some more with your stupidity, but really, you're not worth the trouble vag face. On ignore you go.

    Weren't you done here and gone to some other great board? Nobody cared.

     

Share