Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

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

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    We would have won with Gronk limited as he was if we did not make mistakes. safety, INT and dropped passes lost the game.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    [QUOTE]How could the coaches NOT draw a game plan not involving Gronk??? They knew he was not able to play. Using him has a decoy just doesn't cut it for a SB!!! I guess the Giants realized pretty quickly that Gronk would not be a threat. The coaches had 2 weeks to be inventive but no, they even released Underwood removing one of the few WR options they had. Bitter...
    Posted by FrogLegs[/QUOTE]
    True, true.

    More importantly, how could the coaches not learn from previous losses against the Steelers and the same Giants to game plan for an offense that was likely to have diminished productivity in the pass game?
     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    What???  Giants beat Pats by 4 points in week 9 with a fully healthy Gronk and they beat them by 4 again in the Super Bowl.  End of story.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    [QUOTE]How could the coaches NOT draw a game plan not involving Gronk??? They knew he was not able to play. Using him has a decoy just doesn't cut it for a SB!!! I guess the Giants realized pretty quickly that Gronk would not be a threat. The coaches had 2 weeks to be inventive but no, they even released Underwood removing one of the few WR options they had. Bitter...
    Posted by FrogLegs[/QUOTE]

    When you're missing a HOF caliber guy, it's just not easy to make up for that whatever your plan.

    We are just very thin at the skill positions around Brady after Wes, Gronk and Hernandez.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi : When you're missing a HOF caliber guy, it's just not easy to make up for that whatever your plan. We are just very thin at the skill positions around Brady after Wes, Gronk and Hernandez.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    The truth, Babe. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi

    In Response to Re: Bottom line: No Gronk = No Lombardi:
    [QUOTE]What???  Giants beat Pats by 4 points in week 9 with a fully healthy Gronk and they beat them by 4 again in the Super Bowl.  End of story.
    Posted by BIGAPPLEORCHARD[/QUOTE]

    What does week 9 have to do with it?
     

Share