Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    yeah, let's just pine after WRs/TE who are on other teams. That's the ticket.

    [/QUOTE]


    uh what team is that...?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    He's not on another team.  Hopefully he's still working out somewhere.  He was on the practice squad until other priorities superceded.  aka... defense.  right now that remains the same I suppose until a receiver drops out.  With both Dobson and KT nicked up, maybe it makes sense to bring him back to the practice squad.  Especially considering the durability issues of the other guys , too.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Lot's of great points being made in this discussion. 

    Regardless of what we say and think here, it will ultimately be up to the team and the coaches, who know the team BEST, to impliment adjustments in order to overcome the losses this team has endured.  Secondarily, the remaining players have to step up and execute the game plans that will be created.  Both sides of the ball.  Both the players and coaches will try their best and will not purposely screw it up even though some here think they do.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating


    Bump!

    Sadly I ws correct. I predicted an issue with not having any big targets in the redzone and suggested we run some playaction down there to create seperation or use Develin as an outlet on playaction and it never happened. 4 shots to the E/Z to midget WRs and and a backup TE with a bum knee!  smh

    Lets hope Dobson returns next week or we may be in trouble. any thoughts on this now Rusty and the impact of Gronk???   Smh....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TripleOG. Show TripleOG's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

     

    and thats why I said we need Dobson back. If you havent noticed neither He or KT have been available the last few weeks. I have no idea the status Of Dobson.

    What did you read my post halfway through and hit reply as usual?  Wow

    [/QUOTE]

    I read the whole thing. You said we have no one can up go up for the ball.  That's false. Until Thompkins and Dobson go on IR, that's false.

    We had Gronk all first half on Sunday and couldn't get across mid field by halftime, so what good is our red zone?

    We need to move the ball better. Gronk was a luxury in the red zone, but he's not the only way for us to score.

    Why do you always get so defensive when you are called out for not making sense?

     

     

    Rusty do you have anything to say about this? Looks like you were wrong..... again!

     

    Here is another one of my thoughts that came to fruition unfortunately...

     

    What people arent factoring in is that Gronk had been on the field a while. His small impact in 1st half was likely due to coverage going his way. When he went out, the Browns could not draw up a new plan on the fly and did not know who would pick up the slack. Now that teams see Vareen being a focal point and basically saved the game for us, THEY WILL gameplan for him and others more now that gronk was out. He is was also a big dude who set the tone for our offense

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to coolade2's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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]

    This kind of reminds me when you started a similar thread when Wilfork went down...how did that work out for you?

     

    I disagree with your assessment of the devastation of losing Gronk. Gronk was a guy people game planned for, he was a guy teams had to worry about. McDaniels made a good point yesterday saying teams would have to alter the way they practiced and prepared during the week when facing Gronk, it made things difficult just in a preparation sense...that is now gone.

    Gronk is a redzone threat, that is a big deal. Also think about the size of his hands compared to Edelman, Amendola, Vereen and Boyce...now picture all that in the wind on a 20 degree Saturday night playoff game in the post season. Those things matter. Did you listen to Belichick on Monday? He would of sounded happier if someone had walked into the room and told him he had cancer  - that's the way he sounded - it was morbid.

    I agree Vereen adds something to the offense...Amendola too, but losing Gronk is devastating when we talk about the playoffs. It may be fine playing the remaining door mats in the regular season, but come playoff time it won't. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Worked out great. Team is 10-3, a line for the 2nd seed and Vellano and Jones have overachieved for us as UDFAs.

    Each of your parargraphs, I already included in my post. I said his "red zone presence will be missed" and "the way our offense could dictate plays"...

    You're telling me things I already know.

    That's not the point of this thread. The point is how people can throw out ideas as to how we skin the cat differently.

    We spent 2.5 qtrs with Gronk on the field and couldn't even move the ball, so this idea of Gronk being some elixir really isn't the case to move the ball.

    Gronk got hurt early vs Houston last year and the offense still exploded.

    The real key which I mentioned above is the run game and playaction which will be needed by halftime in these games:

    1. vs Miami

    2. vs Baltimore

    3. AFC Title game/SB

    Usually the divisional rd team is flawed enough where we're not beholden to having to have playaction by halftime.

    You can only get playaction if you can run the ball. The time has come. Oh yes it has.

    [/QUOTE]

    Well the points of emphasis that you want me to just leave out and forget are just a little to important to leave out...redzone and how you can dictate plays with his presence.

    Now anything can happen, but I do find some real problems...here is some more...

    Lets say we rely more on our receivers, etc, well we most likely have to go deeper on the edges to free up the middle of the field now because those guys will now be covered. You been watching our pass protection lately? Brady can't drop back and get protection consistently any longer. That's a problem...maybe not in your fantasy land, but in the real world it is. 

    Catching the football - Gronk could do that - Edelman has done well, but he will drop some, that won't get easier in the freezing cold.

    We are now small. Everyone that we send out there now to catch footballs are small...you watch playoff football? They let things go in the post season, defenses get physical, they let them grab a lot more, PI calls don't influence the game nearly as much...you need a big guy to handle that. Now the only plus I can see from that is that gronk being a TE actually hurt us in the PI regard...big tightends were never going to get those calls that a smaller wide receiver might (might). Gronk and Hern would get mugged, but they would look the other way in the playoffs...maybe the receiver won't? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Another huge problem is the remaining skill players on the roster are some of the most injury prone players in the NFL...Amendola? He is a legend in the injury department. Edelman? He has never stayed healthy...until now...is that going to continue? Vereen? This guy has only played like 6 games in three years for a reason...it's because a stiff wind will break one of his bones. 

    The wild card is Boyce and Dobson too me, but I just don't think they are enough of this offense at this point to change our fate...next year? Yeah maybe then, but not now.

    [/QUOTE]


    Should I bring back the resign Quentin Sims thread....?   That is exactly the reason that I wanted that guy.  When the going gets tough you need tough receivers who can make tough contested catches .  Plus being big helps too.   Gusy like Boldin and Colston... Josh Gordon.  Quentin Sims showed that ability and BB let him walk.  Where is that guy now...?   Wouldn't you rather have him if either Dobson or Thompkins don't get back to 100%...?

    [/QUOTE]


    I wanted to add how a big wide receiver can almost be a hybrid TE where you get the mismatches downfield with the catch radius /jumping ability etc.  Same reason they would run Gronk into the deep secondary ...  to get the size mismatch.

    Seems like an opportunity to morph a lost TE into a big Hybrid WR.  For the packages where you split Gronk out wide,  wouldn't you rather have a faster WR Sims in that role than say a Hooman...?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear what you're saying, I just don't know if they'll keep a marginal player on the roster for that sole purpose. Now I don't know if Sims is marginal, but he probably is and I think having a hybrid type requires some blocking...can he do that? He did look like a huge guy and we certainly need size in that redzone, I'm hoping Dobson is the answer and Hooman steps up...even a little of Devlin.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TripleOG's comment:


    Bump!

    Sadly I ws correct. I predicted an issue with not having any big targets in the redzone and suggested we run some playaction down there to create seperation or use Develin as an outlet on playaction and it never happened. 4 shots to the E/Z to midget WRs and and a backup TE with a bum knee!  smh

    Lets hope Dobson returns next week or we may be in trouble. any thoughts on this now Rusty and the impact of Gronk???   Smh....




    Yes, you were correct.  But Rusty has stated all along that Amendola was going to be a big read zone threat, that he was taller and could go up and get the ball.  We watched all of that statement of his fall right apart yesterday with a certain red zone/touchdown play.  5'9" isnt tall enough.  Gronk was certainly missed big time yesterday.  The middle of the field was open in the redzone but they couldn't attack it with the smaller guys.  Gronk would have certainly taken advantage of it.  Might have been worth taking a shot at throwing Slater in for a endzone fade in the corner or something like that.

    This "Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating" is just another example of Rusty failure claims.  More examples of Rusty not knowing what he is talking about.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     


    Bump!

    Sadly I ws correct. I predicted an issue with not having any big targets in the redzone and suggested we run some playaction down there to create seperation or use Develin as an outlet on playaction and it never happened. 4 shots to the E/Z to midget WRs and and a backup TE with a bum knee!  smh

    Lets hope Dobson returns next week or we may be in trouble. any thoughts on this now Rusty and the impact of Gronk???   Smh....

     




    Yes, you were correct.  But Rusty has stated all along that Amendola was going to be a big read zone threat, that he was taller and could go up and get the ball.  We watched all of that statement of his fall right apart yesterday with a certain red zone/touchdown play.  5'9" isnt tall enough.  Gronk was certainly missed big time yesterday.  The middle of the field was open in the redzone but they couldn't attack it with the smaller guys.  Gronk would have certainly taken advantage of it.  Might have been worth taking a shot at throwing Slater in for a endzone fade in the corner or something like that.

     

    This "Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating" is just another example of Rusty failure claims.  More examples of Rusty not knowing what he is talking about.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yea It was so frustrating to watch an obvious personell problem ruin a game for us and here is this Smucko probably blaming brady today because last week he said no big deal. I said that Vareen would be the focus now and lets see how he does and like I said Gronk is Gronk. He isnt easily shut out of games. Once I heard both KT and Dobson were inactive I knew it was gonna be a long day and can folks please calm down about Boyce. I keep saying he will help next year. Fans see speed and assume this guy should be playing. DBs get paid and you have to battle with them and be strong and break press coverage and run crisp routes. I saw none of that from Boyce and thats why he wasnt a factor. he is a speed merchant who can help situationially at the moment. Not a starter by any stretch yet. We need back the other rooks or we are toast.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Yea It was so frustrating to watch an obvious personell problem ruin a game for us and here is this Smucko probably blaming brady today because last week he said no big deal. I said that Vareen would be the focus now and lets see how he does and like I said Gronk is Gronk. He isnt easily shut out of games. Once I heard both KT and Dobson were inactive I knew it was gonna be a long day and can folks please calm down about Boyce. I keep saying he will help next year. Fans see speed and assume this guy should be playing. DBs get paid and you have to battle with them and be strong and break press coverage and run crisp routes. I saw none of that from Boyce and thats why he wasnt a factor. he is a speed merchant who can help situationially at the moment. Not a starter by any stretch yet. We need back the other rooks or we are toast.

    [/QUOTE]

    There were many of us here who thought Vareen would be a big factor in yesterdays game, thought he would be used a lot.....  He wasn't.  Much like he wasn't part of the game plan last year in the playoffs against the Ravens after he had a huge game the week prior against the Texans.  I don't get it. 

    As far as Boyce, well I think he has some promise, like you I just don't see it this season.  You can bring a unknown project type player in and develop him but the Pats have 3 of those type of guys right now, Dobson, Thompkins and Boyce.  That's just too many to try and do this with especially when you need quality right now to win.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Your observations and analysis are, by design, offered up to the masses in an attempt to ascertain the attention you so desperately crave. How else could you be wrong so often?

     

    the meltdown continues...

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Your observations and analysis are, by design, offered up to the masses in an attempt to ascertain the attention you so desperately crave. How else could you be wrong so often?

     

    the meltdown continues...

    [/QUOTE]


    not really starved for attention. My kids give me plenty of that along with my wife. I was actually legit concerned about this and to have so many people underate Gronk and have the problem come to fruition so quickly was startling even to me but it happened.   I dont know the extent of the injuries at the moment but time is running out.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Your observations and analysis are, by design, offered up to the masses in an attempt to ascertain the attention you so desperately crave. How else could you be wrong so often?

     

    the meltdown continues...

    [/QUOTE]


    not really starved for attention. My kids give me plenty of that along with my wife. I was actually legit concerned about this and to have so many people underate Gronk and have the problem come to fruition so quickly was startling even to me but it happened.   I dont know the extent of the injuries at the moment but time is running out.

    [/QUOTE]


    If I'm not mistaken, I think Fletcherbrook's comment was aimed at the OP (Rusty)

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack. This is a huge loss...period. If Gronk isn't being targeted, he is tying up at least 2 defenders to leave others open. He is easily the 2nd most important piece besides Brady.

    1 for 4 in the redzone should tell you everything you need to know.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Your observations and analysis are, by design, offered up to the masses in an attempt to ascertain the attention you so desperately crave. How else could you be wrong so often?

     

    the meltdown continues...

    [/QUOTE]


    not really starved for attention. My kids give me plenty of that along with my wife. I was actually legit concerned about this and to have so many people underate Gronk and have the problem come to fruition so quickly was startling even to me but it happened.   I dont know the extent of the injuries at the moment but time is running out.

    [/QUOTE]


    If I'm not mistaken, I think Fletcherbrook's comment was aimed at the OP (Rusty)

    [/QUOTE]

    oh ok...oooops

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack. This is a huge loss...period. If Gronk isn't being targeted, he is tying up at least 2 defenders to leave others open. He is easily the 2nd most important piece besides Brady.

    1 for 4 in the redzone should tell you everything you need to know.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have to take into consideration who started the thread.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    We are now small. Everyone that we send out there now to catch footballs are small...you watch playoff football? They let things go in the post season, defenses get physical, they let them grab a lot more, PI calls don't influence the game nearly as much...you need a big guy to handle that. Now the only plus I can see from that is that gronk being a TE actually hurt us in the PI regard...big tightends were never going to get those calls that a smaller wide receiver might (might). Gronk and Hern would get mugged, but they would look the other way in the playoffs...maybe the receiver won't? Maybe, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Another huge problem is the remaining skill players on the roster are some of the most injury prone players in the NFL...Amendola? He is a legend in the injury department. Edelman? He has never stayed healthy...until now...is that going to continue? Vereen? This guy has only played like 6 games in three years for a reason...it's because a stiff wind will break one of his bones. 

    The wild card is Boyce and Dobson too me, but I just don't think they are enough of this offense at this point to change our fate...next year? Yeah maybe then, but not now.

    [/QUOTE]


    Should I bring back the resign Quentin Sims thread....?   That is exactly the reason that I wanted that guy.  When the going gets tough you need tough receivers who can make tough contested catches .  Plus being big helps too.   Gusy like Boldin and Colston... Josh Gordon.  Quentin Sims showed that ability and BB let him walk.  Where is that guy now...?   Wouldn't you rather have him if either Dobson or Thompkins don't get back to 100%...?

    [/QUOTE]


    I wanted to add how a big wide receiver can almost be a hybrid TE where you get the mismatches downfield with the catch radius /jumping ability etc.  Same reason they would run Gronk into the deep secondary ...  to get the size mismatch.

    Seems like an opportunity to morph a lost TE into a big Hybrid WR.  For the packages where you split Gronk out wide,  wouldn't you rather have a faster WR Sims in that role than say a Hooman...?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear what you're saying, I just don't know if they'll keep a marginal player on the roster for that sole purpose. Now I don't know if Sims is marginal, but he probably is and I think having a hybrid type requires some blocking...can he do that? He did look like a huge guy and we certainly need size in that redzone, I'm hoping Dobson is the answer and Hooman steps up...even a little of Devlin.

    [/QUOTE]

    At least bring him back to the practice squad for another look and see where he is at.  Seriosly ....  If Dobson and KT are both down another week...  this team may run out of games to lose.     As if that's not the case already.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack. This is a huge loss...period. If Gronk isn't being targeted, he is tying up at least 2 defenders to leave others open. He is easily the 2nd most important piece besides Brady.

    1 for 4 in the redzone should tell you everything you need to know.




    You have to take into consideration who started the thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    well, you know, Brady had become much, much, much, much too dependent on Gronk. That's just horrible for the team dynamics.....lolLaughing

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to anonymis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack. This is a huge loss...period. If Gronk isn't being targeted, he is tying up at least 2 defenders to leave others open. He is easily the 2nd most important piece besides Brady.

    1 for 4 in the redzone should tell you everything you need to know.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You have to take into consideration who started the thread.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    well, you know, Brady had become much, much, much, much too dependent on Gronk. That's just horrible for the team dynamics.....lolLaughing

    [/QUOTE]


    LOL!

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    You have to take into consideration who started the thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    I know, I know......Capt Delusional.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Hey rust!! Is Jeff Ireland now the best GM in the history of football because he brought in linebackers that could cover Vereen? Meanwhile we send Fletcher out there with the specific task to do just what Miami's linebackers had no problem doing (covering a back). It's very confusing rusty, because part of your Gronk replacement plan was "don't worry folks, we have Vereen". Now I'm assuming the stopping of Vereen was just a tempory thing because Miami has those special linebackers, which begs the question, is Ireland the best? Lol!

     

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating


    No Gronk  +  Decimated defense  +  20 points  = Gronk's absence IS devastating

    Just do the stinkin' math!

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    "This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack."

    Yup. As expected Vereen can be taken out of a game in a way you can't take Gronk out. 

    The stats back it up: we score about 12 more points a game when Gronk plays. 

    That 12 points brings us well above the total offensive production Rusty is insisting upon. 

    Rusty doesn't like this because he sees football as a socialist dictatorship with every man rowing in unison and the head genius at the top. So the idea one person is more important than the other rowers behind him messes with his "next man up" mythology. 

    "Next man up" is nice but it's not the whole story, as much as some in here want to believe that. Transcendent talents are just that - transcendent. And to some extent irreplaceable. 

    This is somehow Tom Brady's fault that Vereen couldn't get open. Meantime Belichick allows for few run plays even though we were running the ball effecitvely and that's Brady's fault also.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TFB12's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tanbass' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This entire thread is silly. Anyone who doesn't think losing Gronk has a huge impact on this offense is on crack. This is a huge loss...period. If Gronk isn't being targeted, he is tying up at least 2 defenders to leave others open. He is easily the 2nd most important piece besides Brady.

    1 for 4 in the redzone should tell you everything you need to know.

    [/QUOTE]


    You have to take into consideration who started the thread.

    [/QUOTE]

    Learn reading comprehension.   How is "Not Devatasting" me saying "not a huge impact"?

    It is a huge impact and I said it in my first post talking about where that would be. It makes it harder, but not all is lost either.  More than one way to skin a cat.  We saw it in the Cleveland game when Gronk went down, too.

    Gronk did nothing for Brady for 3.5 qtrs. Fact.

    They're two different statements. Leave it to two inbreds like you and TFB12 to not know what 6th grade words mean. LMAO

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, definitely harder in the red zone as we saw yesterday. 

    I beg,to differ on Gronk in the Cleveland game. As you say, stats don't tell the whole story. How many defenders did Gronk draw away from another receiver? How did he do run blocking? 

    Gronk did nothing. Laughable.

    next time use the logic you so often criticize others not using. 

     

Share