Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "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.



    Wow. this is true. I never thought of it that way, but that is exactly the way our little angel thinks. 

     
  2. 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:

    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!

     




    the same overated Ellerbe guy was able to shut down vareen mostly alone by meeting him in the flat right when the ball arrived. We are pretty good at taking away targets too. The problem is we needed our shutdown CB to cover a TE/FB hybrid because none of our backers are able to. That was the issue for me. I knew Clay would be the focus but to put Talib on him and leave Arrington on Wallace?? Maybe they had confidence based on the 1st matchup but to me, your coverage guy collins should have been able to check Clay. Either that or they didnt want Talib running deep every other play with that bad hip.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    the same overated Ellerbe guy was able to shut down vareen mostly alone by meeting him in the flat right when the ball arrived.



    Seemed to me that Vereen was getting a lot more than single coverage on most of his snaps.

     
  4. 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:

    Sorry, but 3rd and 1 from the goal line and shotgun has nothing to do with Gronk's absence, nor does PI on Hooman being tackled in the air before attempting to catch the ball.

    Hooman's one handed catch was also gorgeous and argubaly the catch of the year.

    We moved the ball just fine yesterday and Amendola was great, as stated in the original premise.

    Dobson not able to go along with Thompkins hurt the offense, so they have that going for them for excuses.

    I just would have run it more, especially on 3rd downs in the 4th, only down by 7.  33 passes and 3 runs means your counter does not make sense.

    That's not a commitment to the run game, which is what this club needs to do without Gronk.

    I could see if we got blown out and Brady threw a bunh of INTs down there, we didn't. That was the main plus for Brady without ever establishing a run game and playaction.

    You know when they start using playaction so fast in the game, they're giddy to throw a lot which means crap offense just LIKE LAST WEEK WITH GRONK.

    McDaniels and Brady just don't want to learn from their mistakes.



    Oh so it's a coaching problem then? Geez, thanks. Makes me laugh that you think Belichick doesn't have control over his coaches and players...makes you look like an even bigger moron, which is hard to do.

    Hey, it's almost that time where you get yourself banned to save yourself from the daily embarrassment of having people see your posts:)

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    Hey, it's almost that time where you get yourself banned to save yourself from the daily embarrassment of having people see your posts:)



    LMAO

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. 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:

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    Sorry, but 3rd and 1 from the goal line and shotgun has nothing to do with Gronk's absence, nor does PI on Hooman being tackled in the air before attempting to catch the ball.

    Hooman's one handed catch was also gorgeous and argubaly the catch of the year.

    We moved the ball just fine yesterday and Amendola was great, as stated in the original premise.

    Dobson not able to go along with Thompkins hurt the offense, so they have that going for them for excuses.

    I just would have run it more, especially on 3rd downs in the 4th, only down by 7.  33 passes and 3 runs means your counter does not make sense.

    That's not a commitment to the run game, which is what this club needs to do without Gronk.

    I could see if we got blown out and Brady threw a bunh of INTs down there, we didn't. That was the main plus for Brady without ever establishing a run game and playaction.

    You know when they start using playaction so fast in the game, they're giddy to throw a lot which means crap offense just LIKE LAST WEEK WITH GRONK.

    McDaniels and Brady just don't want to learn from their mistakes.



    Oh so it's a coaching problem then? Geez, thanks. Makes me laugh that you think Belichick doesn't have control over his coaches and players...makes you look like an even bigger moron, which is hard to do.

    Hey, it's almost that time where you get yourself banned to save yourself from the daily embarrassment of having people see your posts:)



    Sure. Sure. BB is always sitting on the benches with Brady and McDaniels looking over the Polaroids. LMAO

    Yes, we always see BB demanding the Polaroids from McDaniels and settling between each Brady and McDaniels to demand certain adjustments. LOL

    Yep, he's not down on one knee with our offense on the field, headset off, McDaniels calling plays with Brady in full autonomy.

    The only moron is you, trying to change facts to take the responsibility off the leaders of our offense.

    It's clear when they tried to start running it by subbing in the back (Ridley) in the 3rd qtr it was too late. If you want that adjustment blamed on BB, fine. I see why he did it, but it normally doesn't work.

    Slap McDaniels and Brady down with the egos and start running the ball in from the 10 yard line and in AFTER you get playaction established by halftime.

     

     



    Yes! Yes! Because BB is not looking at "Polaroids" on the sidelines, it means he is having nothing to do with what his coaches are doing. Lol!

    I'm sure that while Belochick is working his 18 hour days during the week he never gets the chance to see McDanials and tell him what he wants - why he's too busy trying on his Santa outfit for the Christmas party!! Yes that's it!!

    And we all know that Bill is just too bashful to tell McDanials and Brady to stop doing what they are doing if he didn't like what they were doing...it's how he's survived for 37 years in the NFL. It's why Kraft pays him 7 million a year...to sit back and do nothing about it, right rust? Lol!

    Hey you still think Adrain Wilson is going to fit like a T as our big nickel safety? You still in love with Patrick Chung? Still think Merriweather is the second best safety in the AFC? Lmao! And when are we getting the 7th overall pick in the draft for Mallett (because its a weak quarterback class)? Lol!

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    Seemed to me that Vereen was getting a lot more than single coverage on most of his snaps.



    Also to piggy back on my own post it seemed like Vereen was kept in to block a lot more than usual given the line's struggles in pass protection.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to Fletcherbrook's comment:

    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...




    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.



    Sorry bro...this was for Harvey ballbanger. Certainly not you.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-redsox-rule. Show the-redsox-rule's posts

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to tanbass' comment:

    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.



    the only thing more devastating would be if brady went down.  the patriots would have won going away had gronk played yesterday. the red zone is a completely different game with him in there. 

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Why Gronk's Absence Is Not Devastating

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:

    In response to DeadAhead's comment:

    Overall, the gameplan worked.  Arrington held his own on the outside, IMO.  He gave up some plays, but nothing egregious, IMO.  He's usally worse on the perimeter.

    Cole isn't ideal on Wallace, obviously and his coverage was actually good on that late TD. He literally was millimeters away from knocking it down.  Can;t complain there, it's just that you'd prefer Talib moved over on him there and maybe Fletcher and a someone else like a Nink chipping on Clay.  Something like that.

    I would have done more mix and match approach on Clay, however.  I may be wrong, but it seemed like Talib was on him almost exclusively.

    On our offense, go look at the top of  this thread and look for my suggestion of a red zone formation.  

    3rd and 1 and a shotgun? Pathetic. You won't see that in my diagram.  Poor playcalling in the red zone always trying to pass, maybe to showcase why it's next man up here from McDaniels and Brady, is we lost.

     



    but the Patriots lost, so, the gameplan must not have worked well enough.




    And both BUST-CHISE and the NY Jets  STINK.....lmao!!!

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share