Armen Da Pats Fan

...is that we are much better situated to sustain losing him this year than last...

Last year, he was in the middle of one of the most prolific seasons ever by a Tight End and the offense was built around that season and that talent, so when he hurt his ankle it had a huge impact. I still say if Gronk was 100% in the SB, we beat the Giants going away. He would have been good for 1-2 TDs and 7-10 catches.

This season, however, because we have been forced to spend so much time without Gronk, we are better prepared to live life without him.

Additionally, since we know now that he is gone for the rest of the season, there is none of the contingency preparation to account for the possiblity that he could return, etc. He's gone, We know it. The coaching staff can prepare with the healthy players they have left.

Gronk is an amazing talent and I think he will end up being a Hall of Fame TE (hopefully spending his entire career in NE), but I am feeling much less anxiety about losing him THIS year than last.

(I still wish he would have had the common sense to not go diving after a ball out of bounds, but that's the way the kid plays - pedal to the metal, so you live with it, you die with it...)

__________________
_________________________________
ADPF

BelichickFan

There's no "nice" thing about it but we are better equipped to deal with it because :

1) We have played almost haldf a season without him.
2) We have actual, real life backup TEs this year.
3) We have Brandon Lloyd this year.
4) We have a better defense this year.

Brady_to_Moss

nice thing about gronk injury? Stupid thread

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JoeSixPat

Agreed (and I think we all recognize you're not saying Gronk's injury is "nice" - just looking on the bright side that unlike last year the team has already adapted their gameplanning)

Indeed as far as offense goes, I'd say the Patriots showed enough depth to confound DCs for this next game and hopefully the Super Bowl, showing that even without Gronk and Woodhead that there remain numerous quality options, and that they run big risks putting double coverage on anyone, as well as when blitzing Brady with our remaining RBs, TEs and WRs able to both stretch the field as well as take a screen pass for a big pickup.

Last season, without the same depth at RB (for running and receiving) and WR it was much easier to blanket Welker and Hernandez to limit the offense.

That being said, I remain of the opinion that if given the choice between having Gronk, but missing the bye and playing on the road, or having a bye and home field advantage without Gronk, I'd prefer to have Gronk.

I know others here value a home game over having Gronk, but I maintain that good health is key in the playoffs (thankfully BB prepares for injuries with his devotion to considerable depth - a weakness he clearly recognized and addressed in the offseason, paying dividends now.)

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ctpatsfan77

Worst. Title. Ever.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

dales804

He did get one foot down in bounds with possession of the ball. It was a lot closer to being a catch (though clearly not one) than I originally thought.

And, yes, the Patriots are better equipped to dealing with the loss of Gronk because they have had to play 5 games without him this year, as opposed to zero last year. Belichick saw the need for depth at TE and made sure he got it, thankfully.

PATSYLICIOUS

Of course it isn't 'nice' but this is alot better than last year's situation where he tried to play on something that clearly wasn't allowing him to be effective. I think it hurt us. This year on the positive side we can fully gameplan without him in there, which we've proven over the last 2 months is doable and this offense can remain extremely potent. This is a much better scenario than keeping false hope that he can contribute and then needing to adjust mid game, which give MAJOR credit to JMD and the rest of the offensive staff/players for doing on Sunday within a few series's.

__________________
Organized madness
The young Gott-stra
Young Frank Sinatra

patchick

Yep, BB's obsessive collecting and auditioning of tight ends early in the year is paying off. There's only one Gronk in this world, but Hoomanawanui is more than holding his own.

(And can we all just pretend that the poor OP said something more like "The reassuring thing in the wake of Gronk's injury"?)

RodThePat

I actually think the offense would've performed better in the Superbowl had Gronk not played and they designed a gameplan that didn't include him. I'd rather he not play than have him at 40% on a game.

aluminum seats

You guys can lighten up about the thread title--guy obviously meant what are the potential silver linings this time around.

To that, I'll add the fact that it's cut and dried that he WON'T be playing. As a decoy last year, it meant that 1/5 of our skills players were essentially useless every down he played. This year, you'll have Welker/Lloyd/Hernandez playing nearly every down, with the other two guys out there being able to actually contribute. Be hard to keep this team under 30 no matter how that shakes out.

__________________
"So I'm going to throw myself against the wall...
'Cause I'd rather feel bad than not feel anything at all."