If ??? were healthy,we would have won more.

Mayo
Wilfork
Gronk
Talib
Arrington
Kelly

In that order.

If our team had its full contingent of starters, we would not have lost either the Jets game or Miami game or both. 14-2 or 13-3 would give us a #1 seed. I don't think we would have lost the game to Denver at full strength.
On to the Super Bowl.

Many posters here think that we would have been embarrassed by Seattle in the SB. Seattle defense was playing at an extremely high level that day. Theoretically, a similar embarrassing outcome could be assume. However, I think a highly competitive game with an uncertain outcome is most likely what would have happened. Remember, we would be at full strength. Donkies had 4 or 5 turnovers! Turnovers are always circumstantial. These two factors alone would have created a different game in the Pats-Hawks Superbowl game. Personally, I would be willing to put money on Pats in full strength against the Hawks.:rocker:

Since I didn't answer, I'd put Wilfork, Gronk about equal. If we had Wilfork to collapse the pocket sometimes we might have got Peyton to cough a couple up, as Chandler would have had less opposition too.

Of course Gronk would have helped against Denver. Once they pinched off a couple runs, they had four guys lined up along the first down markers. Even if Tom had been more accurate long, you're not getting much done with Edelman and Amendola in that role.

The only real debate in my opinion would be either Rob Gronkowski, which would have given us a realistic receiving option at the end; or Aqib Talib, who could have helped shut down one of the DEN receivers in a much better manner.

With Gronk we score more, and make DEN respect our receiving options a bit differently. With Talib, we force Manning and DEN into going to different receivers, and likely hold them to less points.

Gronk vs Talib--take your pick on either side of the ball. Any other player is important, but not on the same level whatsoever.

fnordcircle said:

You spelled Tony Gonzalez wrong.

Click to expand...

No, I spelled Gronk correctly. I am aware of Tony Gonzalez. He was so dominant that he won one playoff game in his entire career.

Nothing against Tony G, but since you brought him up, he was a poor blocker. Gronk is a dominant blocker. He was a great redzone threat. Gronk scored more redzone touchdowns in his first two seasons than any player ever. Not any tight end ever. Any player ever.

Gronk is bigger faster stronger and a better blocker, and the only thing he has less of is finesse and (important) ability to stay healthy. But as for a better player? Healthy Gronk is a force of nature, Gonzales when healthy is a Hall of Fame tight end.

I spelled Gronk correctly. Healthy Gronk Gronks in the Super Bowl and wins the Super Bowl MVGronk. Just watch, I mean, Just Gronk.

The numbers do not lie...

2012 TE production 116 catches 16 Td's
2013 TE Production 55 catches 5 TD's

But to say the loss of Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk or any of our top tier players is greater than the other defies this team concept of this sport.

Gronk followed by Mayo, Kelly then Wilfork.

I would have loved to have seen that power running attack with a healthy Gronk. I'm not saying we would have won the SB, but I think with the unpredictability, we could have given Seattle a good shot....Much better then what the donkey's did at least.

I am really amazed the amount of people that look to the offense and say "Gronk". Did you watch the Super Bowl? Seattle's D completely dominated. Denver dismantled the Pats, and then in turn was outclassed by Seattle's D. The answer has to be a defensive player. With Wilfork, Mayo, Kelley, Spikes, Talib all missing key time, and Adrian Wilson spending the season on IR, any one of those guys could have been a difference maker.

My answer: if the defense were healthy....

Steve:Section 102 said:

I am really amazed the amount of people that look to the offense and say "Gronk". Did you watch the Super Bowl? Seattle's D completely dominated. Denver dismantled the Pats, and then in turn was outclassed by Seattle's D. The answer has to be a defensive player. With Wilfork, Mayo, Kelley, Spikes, Talib all missing key time, and Adrian Wilson spending the season on IR, any one of those guys could have been a difference maker.

My answer: if the defense were healthy....

Click to expand...

We beat the Broncos with Gronk and scored 34 points..,

Without him we lost only scoring 16, and looked dreadful in offense.

Defense was bad AFC championship but they held Denver to FG's many times. Our offense couldn't produce touchdowns. That was the difference.

It's a fight between Mayo and Gronk. Our offense still did good without Gronk but he certainly pushes us into that next level. Once Mayo went down though, the defense dropped off significantly. It forced Hightower to be out of position and to be on the field more than he should. Run support lacked. RB screens owned us on 3rd down.

mgteich said:

How do you all think we would have done this year if Gronk were healthy for all our games, and Talib didn't play any of them?

Click to expand...

12-4, pick 'em against the Broncos and Seattle. So about the same. Maybe they don't beat Seattle, but maybe they don't turn the ball over 5 times, maybe they don't give up a kick return, maybe they actually keep it close (as they tend to do) and force Seattle's offense to make more plays rather than just play not blow a big lead. But maybe Lynch would run for 500 yards on them too.

Talib won some games for them with his play no doubt, but that was necessary because they couldn't score early in the season. Having Gronk healthy all year would have mitigated the need for that to some extent.

50-yard-line said:

Gronkowski. It's not close. Other than a few QB's and maybe that one guy who has an out-of-his-mind year (JJ Watt last year), there isn't a bigger difference maker in the league. He is un-coverable. The defense gets better when he steps onto the field because the chains move more often and the scoreboard lights up.

Click to expand...

Yes. Really the fate of the Pats over the past 3 postseasons has turned on Gronkowski not being healthy. 2011 Super Bowl he was essentially a part-time decoy due to the ankle, full-strength Gronk and I think you get another score, or a timely first down, whatever it is and it doesn't matter that Welker didn't catch the ball or that Eli made an amazing sideline throw from inside his own 10 to start that last drive. Last 2 years he's been out for the AFC title game, they didn't get blown out in either (at the same time it never felt like they were "in" the game), but '12 Ravens and '13 Broncos were both teams that the Pats beat or at least were competitive with (that was the questionable game-winning Ravens FG game) in prior games. "If only" doesn't count for anything of course, but if only he were healthy it's not totally ridiculous to think they could have won the last 3 Super Bowls.

Gronk is the only right answer to this thread. If he'd been health for the last three years, Brady would have 5 rings.

The reason why the Patriots have Gronk in the first place is because of his injury history. Albeit different injuries than what has plagued him recently, Gronk fell into Belichick's lap because no one else wanted to take on a guy who had just missed an entire year of play in college.



The injury things sucks for this team, going back to ones that they overcame (Law, Poole out; Gay and Samuel in) and ones that they couldnt: 2006 Rodney Harrison out in week 17, 2011&2012&2013 Gronk, 2008 Brady, Talib in 2012( '13 AFCCG) comes to mind.

But in 2007, they had everybody. Seriously there might have been one o-lineman who missed the second half of the superbowl but is that it or is that it? That one they should have nailed.

AzorianPats said:

We beat the Broncos with Gronk and scored 34 points..,

Without him we lost only scoring 16, and looked dreadful in offense.

Defense was bad AFC championship but they held Denver to FG's many times. Our offense couldn't produce touchdowns. That was the difference.

Click to expand...

ding ding ding! its Gronk and it has been Gronk since the 2011 AFC championship game. What happened in the superbowl when he was out? Both Wilfork Mayo and Kyle arrington played in that game. Look what happenedt he following season, we score 13 points against baltimore, then against Denver. Its not the defense that lets us down its the offense.

I think Tommy Kelly was a pretty underrated loss. Interior pressure by the rookie DTs was pretty good all things considered but a healthy Tommy Kelly could have helped to collapse the pocket more consistently and and at worse altered a few of the opposing QB's throws with his height and reach.

I feel we could stand to get better at batting balls down or altering throws when the pass rush cannot get there (even the best pass rushes get stoned from time to time).

Gronkowski is the obvious answer, but of the rest of the possibilities, I'd rank Mayo just slightly above Wilfork, based on my thinking that he could have made some plays rushing the passer or creating turnovers that I wouldn't expect from Vince at this point.

mgteich said:

Which players would have made the most difference if they were healthy in 2013?

Curiously, for me, Gronkowski and Dobson aren't even in the top 5.

Talib
Wilfork
Kelly
Mayo
Arrington

The offense was truly amazing. Obviously, they could have produced more with all the receivers and TE's healthy all year. But offense is not what we were missing.

Click to expand...

Seeing how all of you're choices did play at some point and you're looking for defensive players, I'll go with Adrian Wilson.

Offensively, to hell with Welker, shouldn't have let Woodhead slip away. 3.5 for 2 years? Really?