Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    Yeah, no big deal.  Losing one of the few 100% mismatches for opposing defenses in the NFL is just a bump in the road.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG'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]


    The biggest Void that was left when Gronk went down is the lack of a target over 6 ft. I get that Vareen and Danny can cover for Gronk over the middle, but you noticed at the end of the browns game, our only option was to hope that Boyce can outrun a guy. We currently have NOONE to go up for the jump ball. Thats how you attack smallish safeties like Gregory and McCourty by throwing high to your tight end.

    Now we have to really beat the other guy every time which is hard to do. IN the redzone, Mulligan and Develin are barely over 6 ft and wont outjump anyone.

    We need Dobson to return QUICK to give some height and big play ability back to this offense. I am also concerned with the amount of hits Vareen is taking. He still has a bad wrist and they need to limit him and get more from Danny/Edleman over the middle and utilize playactions to the FB instead of looking long all the time. The Fb is ALWAY open for a 1st down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson has size. Thompkins can go up. He won the game vs the Saints doing it.

    That's why my formation above has Thompkins in parantheses at the X and Dobson at the Z.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

     

    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:

     



    Hey Russ

     

    I agree. Gronk's absence is not devastating.

    Like everyone, I was shocked at the graphic nature of the hit on Gronk. Gronk is like a superhero cartoon character and he was rendered helpless by that devastating blow. In a way it summarized all the hits the Pats have taken this season injury-wise. Likewise, the dazzling comeback symbolized the honest, gritty, selfless nature of the team who hung together with each other so that the impossible became possible. For me, the comeback(s) and what they symbolize are more powerful than the injury. It is about hope, togetherness and struggling to keep finding a way to succeed.

    As sports fans we all look for something emotional in our teams and the games. For some, it is about winning and the dream of being invincible. For me, that is un-attainable dream. I can never be invincible; I always fail at that task. So, this years version of the Pats fits my emotional needs as well. Gronks loss is something we need to grow from and actually thrive from!

    How far can the Pats take it? Nobody has an answer to that right now. But if they stick together, go all out, struggle against the "impossible", then anything is possible.

     

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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]

    Agree, but Mulligan can block well. That's why I was saying in another thread about how McDaniels can improve first half gamecalling is by using Mulligan and Develin as both blockers AND receivers.

    Seriously. I am not asking for heavy targeting, but strategic targeting to show they can do and will do both.

    No binkies from Brady.  Spread it out and diversify.  I think Brady/McDaniels were too Gronk happy vs the Browns.

    Brady was staring him down a lot and they were trying to get him the ball, which obviously you would want to, but Cleveland knows that too.

    [/QUOTE]

    Did Mulligan just learn to block this year becasue last year you said he was the worst at everything.  Maybe something has changed?  What could it be?

    [/QUOTE]

    I've never mentioned Matt Mulligan's play on the Jets in my life, Bustchise.

    And, stay out of my thread. Can there be one thread you don't try to interevene with, you insecure little girl?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    bwahahahahahahahaha!  "Stay out of my thread"?  I think that your previous command of "stop using my words" has just been usurped as the most pathetic thing you've ever posted here.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    I agree.  If every other player that the Pats had planned upon contributing this year stays healthy and plays at a level as good or better than they have ever done previously, in each game going forward, the loss of Gronk will not be devastating.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yeah, no big deal.  Losing one of the few 100% mismatches for opposing defenses in the NFL is just a bump in the road.

    [/QUOTE]

    Unfortunately, your reading comprehension is awful, as we know.

    Gronk wasn't a mismatch on Sunday, was he?

    [/QUOTE]

    No, you're right about that.  He was a fair amount less mobile with the ACL/MCL tear.  I knew as soon as it happened that he was not going to be able to make his normal moves with only one leg.  Good call, though.  You really got me on that one.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG'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]


    The biggest Void that was left when Gronk went down is the lack of a target over 6 ft. I get that Vareen and Danny can cover for Gronk over the middle, but you noticed at the end of the browns game, our only option was to hope that Boyce can outrun a guy. We currently have NOONE to go up for the jump ball. Thats how you attack smallish safeties like Gregory and McCourty by throwing high to your tight end.

    Now we have to really beat the other guy every time which is hard to do. IN the redzone, Mulligan and Develin are barely over 6 ft and wont outjump anyone.

    We need Dobson to return QUICK to give some height and big play ability back to this offense. I am also concerned with the amount of hits Vareen is taking. He still has a bad wrist and they need to limit him and get more from Danny/Edleman over the middle and utilize playactions to the FB instead of looking long all the time. The Fb is ALWAY open for a 1st down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson has size. Thompkins can go up. He won the game vs the Saints doing it.

    That's why my formation above has Thompkins in parantheses at the X and Dobson at the Z.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Go back and read my post you nut job!  You are one crazy ombre. I am not trying to steal your shine bro. You got issues. I agree IF Dobson is on the field but he hasnt been , hence the speed route to Boyce.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG'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]


    The biggest Void that was left when Gronk went down is the lack of a target over 6 ft. I get that Vareen and Danny can cover for Gronk over the middle, but you noticed at the end of the browns game, our only option was to hope that Boyce can outrun a guy. We currently have NOONE to go up for the jump ball. Thats how you attack smallish safeties like Gregory and McCourty by throwing high to your tight end.

    Now we have to really beat the other guy every time which is hard to do. IN the redzone, Mulligan and Develin are barely over 6 ft and wont outjump anyone.

    We need Dobson to return QUICK to give some height and big play ability back to this offense. I am also concerned with the amount of hits Vareen is taking. He still has a bad wrist and they need to limit him and get more from Danny/Edleman over the middle and utilize playactions to the FB instead of looking long all the time. The Fb is ALWAY open for a 1st down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson has size. Thompkins can go up. He won the game vs the Saints doing it.

    That's why my formation above has Thompkins in parantheses at the X and Dobson at the Z.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Couldn't get across mid field by halftime? Just goes to more proof that you don't watch the games.  When the facts don't back your idiotic premise,just make up your own, right?  You freakin idiot.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    How is it a good point when Dobson is 6'3 and has size and can go up?  Thompkins has ups too. We've seen that numerous times most notably during the Saints game winner.

    [/QUOTE]

    no i was saying i know if dobby is back and he is tall and that he can be a taller reciever in the end zone - if i miss read I am sorry

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl'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]

    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. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill'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]

    If BB and the team feels they have what it takes to win, why shouldn't we support that feeling?  Secondly, why question what they are trying to do which is their best to win?  Who knows best, the couch potato fan or the folks who are actually on the team?

    When all is said and done, it is the results on the field that matters and not all the conjecture we are seeing on this board.

     
  16. 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]

    And Shizzles,

    Who did we have to go "up for a ball" when we won 3 SBs?  

    This whole Randy Moss crap in 2007 has destroyed some fans's abilities to analyze the game.

    [/QUOTE]

    Oo! Oo! Pick me!!! Pick me!!!!

    Answer: Those SB winning teams had healthy offenses, including RB's that somehow managed to hold onto the ball????? And stout/healthy defensive front 7's????

     
  17. 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]

    In response to AZPAT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    at the end of the day, when it comes to the SB - stats and regular season records don't matter. That being said, statistics may provide insight into the state of one's team, progress/trends over time. And, the texans were NOT #1 in defense when it comes to points against....far from it. Laughing

    [/QUOTE]

    Some will disagree, and that YARDS and T.O.P. are the mitigating factor. Last time I looked, points on turnovers (pick 6's, etc) go into the "PA" column........... 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    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]


    exactly . 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. Sure WIggy caught a lot balls at 6-2 because he was a technician but we also subbed him for Rudledge(6'5") when we needed a blocking tight end when running. Mulligan is a good position blocker but aint gonna drive anyone downfield. So Gronks loss is gonna effect a lot and even if DJ williams gets up to speed, he is not a blocker either.

    Gronk was the Hardcore guy who kept this offense from being finesse. Good thing we still have Blount to trot out.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TripleOG'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]


    The biggest Void that was left when Gronk went down is the lack of a target over 6 ft. I get that Vareen and Danny can cover for Gronk over the middle, but you noticed at the end of the browns game, our only option was to hope that Boyce can outrun a guy. We currently have NOONE to go up for the jump ball. Thats how you attack smallish safeties like Gregory and McCourty by throwing high to your tight end.

    Now we have to really beat the other guy every time which is hard to do. IN the redzone, Mulligan and Develin are barely over 6 ft and wont outjump anyone.

    We need Dobson to return QUICK to give some height and big play ability back to this offense. I am also concerned with the amount of hits Vareen is taking. He still has a bad wrist and they need to limit him and get more from Danny/Edleman over the middle and utilize playactions to the FB instead of looking long all the time. The Fb is ALWAY open for a 1st down.

    [/QUOTE]

    Dobson has size. Thompkins can go up. He won the game vs the Saints doing it.

    That's why my formation above has Thompkins in parantheses at the X and Dobson at the Z.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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?

    [/QUOTE]

    Go back and read my post you nut job!  You are one crazy ombre. I am not trying to steal your shine bro. You got issues. I agree IF Dobson is on the field but he hasnt been , hence the speed route to Boyce.

    [/QUOTE]

    DObson will be available in the postseason.  We don't have to always pass our way to win games. 

    We've lost SBs, winnable playoff games, etc, with this obsession. You don't see to get this.

    We won 3 SBs with dwarves and only a blocking TE.

    [/QUOTE]


    read my post nutjob. I never said anything about the SB. I am talking about next week. You know, one game at a time like BB preaches???

    Has BB told you Dobson will be available for next weeks game? OK then shut it. You start chit when there is nothing there. Thats the sign of a troll. Stirring the pot. We argue enough when there is a reason. Stop making up stuff and try and actually READ and UNDERSTAND someones point instead of it always being about YOU. Its a message board. If you only wanna type, type, type and dont read be a data entry clerk. I know you need work.

     
  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 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]

    Agree, but Mulligan can block well. That's why I was saying in another thread about how McDaniels can improve first half gamecalling is by using Mulligan and Develin as both blockers AND receivers.

    Seriously. I am not asking for heavy targeting, but strategic targeting to show they can do and will do both.

    No binkies from Brady.  Spread it out and diversify.  I think Brady/McDaniels were too Gronk happy vs the Browns.

    Brady was staring him down a lot and they were trying to get him the ball, which obviously you would want to, but Cleveland knows that too.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, mulligan and devein have something to contribute As both blockers and catchers, but there is only 1 Gronk. It's like comparing Amendola to Megatron. At least that is the way I view the skill gap. 

    Someone else said it best...defensive coordinators have to gameplan to stop Gronk. That is often done by doubling him...no other patriot pass catcher needs to be gameplanned around. 

    I don't know what your fascination with Brady's binkies is? The most important chemistry on the field is QB to receiver. Gronk runs the right routes, he catches everything. Brady trusts him. Case closed. I am not sure why you don't see the value in this? I get what you are saying about an over reliance, but comfort level and confidence outweigh that to me. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share