Gronkowski narrowly misses out on $2 million bonus

[PatsBoy12]

Mike Reiss (BSPN) kept it classy: A Rob Gronkowski rarity: No targets, no catches in win

SB Nation didn't: Rob Gronkowski got 0 targets to stay at 69 receptions for the season

Newsday ( Jets Q&A: Gronkowski had no catches? ) tells us that Darren Lee's was tasked with shutting down Gronk:

It might help explain why Lewis and Bolden had some nice runs yesterday.

Poor guy thinks he really shut Gronk down. Someone needs to get him in the concussion protocal ASAP.

 

[RobertWeathers]

its more important to go into the playoffs with Gronk hitting on all eight cylinders. If he copps an attitutude, which I doubt he will, they can smooth things over later.

Gronk has 16 cylinders.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Felger said he doesn't deserve it because he got himself suspended for a game.

Well, this is one of the times when the blind squirrel finds the acorn.

 

[Jackson 2]

Well, this is one of the times when the blind squirrel finds the acorn.

It's a fair argument.

 

[RIpats88]

he'll probably get all pro and get it. it was telling how important Bill views Gronk when he wasnt targeted once and was pulled before any of the starters.

But we know what he can do. Brady - Gronk basically won us the steelers game. hes unguardable

 

[mgteich]

I don't know why we beat around the bush. The team made the economic decision of not targeting Gronk. It is a business after all. The team COULD have had Gronk inactive. That would have been very different. They would have been not been risking a players who has been injured in the past.

AND JUST BY THE WAY
I would have been fine if the team went out of its way to target Gronk LATE in the game, so that the scoreboard could show his accomplishment, and the crowd could give him his due.

 

[mitsudriver]

Should be a no brainer first team all pro. If you were starting a team and you've got to choose between Kelce and Gronk who are you taking?

 

[rochrist]

I don't know why we beat around the bush. The team made the economic decision of not targeting Gronk. It is a business after all. The team COULD have had Gronk inactive. That would have been very different. They would have been not been risking a players who has been injured in the past.

AND JUST BY THE WAY
I would have been fine if the team went out of its way to target Gronk LATE in the game, so that the scoreboard could show his accomplishment, and the crowd could give him his due.

I think they didn't target him because NY was selling out to stop him. He was doubled under and over all day. Going to him in the face of that is forcing it. Teams won't be able to do that with the same impunity with Hogan and Burkhead back.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Dumb question, how do incentives like that affect the cap? If he doesn't make it, it doesn't free up cap space does it?

 

[Biffins]

I don't know why we beat around the bush. The team made the economic decision of not targeting Gronk. It is a business after all. The team COULD have had Gronk inactive. That would have been very different. They would have been not been risking a players who has been injured in the past.

AND JUST BY THE WAY
I would have been fine if the team went out of its way to target Gronk LATE in the game, so that the scoreboard could show his accomplishment, and the crowd could give him his due.

You know the incentive was added at start of the season by the Patriots, it wasn't in Gronk's contract.

Also you do realize Gronk didn't play the second half.

 

[DarrylS]

Of course, Felger said he doesn't deserve it because he got himself suspended for a game.

Of course Felger would say that, why would he utter a positive word???.. that is not who he is or his public personna. He is an angry Packers fan who makes a living off of being a contrarian...

 

[mossmask]

On December 24th after the Bills game, Gronk was asked what it says about the organization that’s been able to win 12 or more games for eight straight seasons.
“It’s unbelievable,” Gronk said, then smiled. “If you think about it, I got here eight years ago. Maybe that’s the reason.”
Well, that's just Gronk being Gronk, but I'm not sure how well those comments would go over with the Coach or team who pride themselves on never harping on Personal accolades.
Could those comments signaling out himself as an individual have had anything to do with the "No Targets" on Sunday?

 

[Urgent]

Dumb question, how do incentives like that affect the cap? If he doesn't make it, it doesn't free up cap space does it?

My understanding:
Yes, the incentives count against the cap. Presumably next year's cap.

In general, there are two ways to account for incentives against the cap under the CBA. There are "Likely To Be Earned" and "Not Likely To Be Earned" incentives, simply defined as whether the player achieved those specific terms the season prior. Likely incentives count against the cap in that season. Not Likely incentives don't count for that season, but count in the following season. If a player did not achieve the Likely incentives, that generates a credit against the cap. (Not sure if technically the credit could apply in-year, but in effect it would roll to the next year, since you cannot be over the cap - it probably applies to the following year anyway.)

In this case, you could look at Gronk's results the prior season to see which incentives were Likely. It's possible some would have counted against the 2017 cap, and some in 2018.

If he doesn't reach the targets, but gets paid anyway, that will still count against the cap. Any money paid to players by the team should count against the cap.

Miguel and others can correct the details above.

 

[Angelpats]

I don't know why we beat around the bush. The team made the economic decision of not targeting Gronk. It is a business after all. The team COULD have had Gronk inactive. That would have been very different. They would have been not been risking a players who has been injured in the past.

AND JUST BY THE WAY
I would have been fine if the team went out of its way to target Gronk LATE in the game, so that the scoreboard could show his accomplishment, and the crowd could give him his due.

It was not an economic decision. The patriots are not a cheap team if that’s what you mean. They have paid players incentives even when they didn’t meet the requirements. He was double and tripled all day. If anything it was a football decision to not target him and risking injury. If it was an economic decision they wouldn’t have played him at all.

 

[TB_Helmet]

My understanding:
Yes, the incentives count against the cap. Presumably next year's cap.

In general, there are two ways to account for incentives against the cap under the CBA. There are "Likely To Be Earned" and "Not Likely To Be Earned" incentives, simply defined as whether the player achieved those specific terms the season prior. Likely incentives count against the cap in that season. Not Likely incentives don't count for that season, but count in the following season. If a player did not achieve the Likely incentives, that generates a credit against the cap. (Not sure if technically the credit could apply in-year, but in effect it would roll to the next year, since you cannot be over the cap - it probably applies to the following year anyway.)

In this case, you could look at Gronk's results the prior season to see which incentives were Likely. It's possible some would have counted against the 2017 cap, and some in 2018.

If he doesn't reach the targets, but gets paid anyway, that will still count against the cap. Any money paid to players by the team should count against the cap.

Miguel and others can correct the details above.

Thanks! Never really thought about it before.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

he already got some of his money. They already amended his deal to give him a chance at all this extra money, i don't expect them to bend even more for 2 million, thats money thats needed elsewhere.

Not so sure about that.
They clearly held him back yesterday (0 targets?) with the Playoffs in mind.
You can't give a guy a contract like that and then not give him a chance to earn his upside if he's healthy (his health was part of the reason the contract was structured like it was).
I don't know how much, but they will make some or all of it up to him. They want a Happy Gronk.