If Gronk played would PATS have beat BENGALS?

OK. The game was close. If PATS had Gronk things may have been different.
Reports say he looks real good to go but family said no.
Only one game some say but one game can make a difference in the end
especially with Vince gone.
So how do you feel. If Grok was in the game last week do you think PATS would have won.

can't remember him dropping a pass.

the pats could have beaten the bengals without him, but with gronk its pretty much a sure thing.

I day 60/40 without gronk 80/20 with him.

resdubwhite said:

can't remember him dropping a pass.

Click to expand...

It's rare to be sure. He did have a big drop in the 2010 loss to Cleveland. Game thread was brutal, with some folks frothing to run him out of town.

Personally I think they in if Gronk OR Ridley plays. Either one would have scored on that first and goal after Amendola's nice catch.

Uncle Rico said:

It's rare to be sure. He did have a big drop in the 2010 loss to Cleveland. Game thread was brutal, with some folks frothing to run him out of town.

Personally I think they in if Gronk OR Ridley plays. Either one would have scored on that first and goal after Amendola's nice catch.

Click to expand...

meant in the bengals game. Just checked.

He didn't drop any pass last sunday.

resdubwhite said:

meant in the bengals game. Just checked.

He didn't drop any pass last sunday.

Click to expand...

Ah, humor. Excellent.

My opinion, they would have won (this is banking on Gronk being Gronk)

All those blitz up the middle, esp on the pass to edelman where Tom had to throw quickly and off his back foot, would have been exposed by Gronk running a short hook or curl route.. No way Bengals leave him 1-1..

If the offensive line still didn't bother to block anybody, then no - Gronk would not have been the difference between winning and losing.

Nate Solder looked like a solid Gronk replacement, so I doubt it.

Zeus said:

If the offensive line still didn't bother to block anybody, then no - Gronk would not have been the difference between winning and losing.

Click to expand...

Though it is possible his blocking would have helped considerably in that first and goal. Wouldn't lock up a win but would increase the odds for a TD, which would help.

I didn't expect DA so soon so based on how long Gronk has been out Yes!

If Gronk played, then i doubt he would be his old himself.It's gonna take him a couple of weeks on the field before he gets going.

The absence of 3 of the top 4 offensive weapons does tend to slow down an offense.

Ditto the 4th just coming back.

It's called reality.

I think either Gronk or Ridley would have really helped. Either by virtue of a better running back or a better blocker, it would have given the running game a much better chance of making the playaction game successful, rather than the 1/10 and two sacks that they got out of it.

Who really cares. The Bengals game is dead and gone. Stop worrying about it.

They're moving on to New Orleans now. That should be the focus.

libra957 said:

If Gronk played, then i doubt he would be his old himself.It's gonna take him a couple of weeks on the field before he gets going.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true Elite or very Good players can have Great games after a layoff. I remember Terry Glenn many moons ago who came after three or four games off and had well over a 100 yds receiving.

If the pats werent forced to play basic play action offense and had better pass protection, they couldve beaten them. Just putting Gronk in is no gurantee if brady is on his back .

Probably ...

that being said I am concerned that Gronk is being perceived as our silver bullet.

Gronk WITH another tight end may prove very challenging for other teams but so far we don't have another tight end to step up once Gronk gets back.

We thought we did and then we released him.

This team is what it's record says it is...but we have a very very long way to go...with and especially without Gronk.

Not sure about that, I think Ridley would have helped more honestly (if he would have held onto the ball that is). We had success on the ground early with our #4 RB and then his fumble was a killer, I'd imagine Ridley or Vereen would have ran wild Sunday if given the carries and we were more committed to running.

Our passing game never got on track with the interior pressure, Brady's kryptonite even whenever we have Gronk. Drops didn't help either but, I didn't see Gronk making much of the difference there. Although it's entirely possible we get the TD on the 1st and goal and it's a different ballgame, who knows.

Uncle Rico said:

Though it is possible his blocking would have helped considerably in that first and goal. Wouldn't lock up a win but would increase the odds for a TD, which would help.

Click to expand...

Yep, either his blocking or his presence as a red zone target could have helped.

I think the offensive woes on Sunday were a total breakdown where the line, the backs, the receivers and the QB all played poorly. They've had games like this in the past with a healthy Gronk and lost so there's no reason to think he'd have been enough to turn things around in this one.