LaFell and Easley not present at practice

[Mack Herron]

I'm so confused.

Someone blamed amendola for brady's pick.

I mentioned Brady's throw was impossible to catch for a player of amendola's height.

Then you responded to me about how stork let a free rusher in.

Either your brain is still recuperating after watching interstellar, or your response to me initially was a miss click.

Actually, I was providing context to support your point. There was a guy in Brady's face disrupting timing and leading to the errant throw.

 

[Oswlek]

Amendola's performance in the last few games has been about what you'd want from a guy who is probably the 3rd or 4th read on a lot of routes, or sometimes just running clear-out routes. If the Patriots were unhappy with what he was providing, then we'd probably see them run formations with Wright or even Dobson in there. But they are doing the 3WR and its Amendola, so they seem to be happy with his play.

46 snaps against Denver. Clearly they think he's providing something.

To my eyes, the guy looks reasonably healthy for the first time since the 2013 preseason.

 

[BradyManny]

Seriously, though, are there any whispers on Easley. I think he's been improving week-to-week and could be a factor come playoff time if he stays healthy.

What's odd to me is I thought Easley was looking pretty good on the outside in Chandler's place before we acquired Ayers, when Easley was bumped back to his previous role. Easley hasn't done a whole lot on the inside from what I can tell but interior rush is one of the hardest things to come by in the NFL and he's still very young, to say the very least.

 

[Mack Herron]

Dominique Easley missing from start of Patriots practice, Brandon LaFell returns
http://itiswhatitis.weei.com/sports...-of-patriots-practice-brandon-lafell-returns/

So Easley played 2 weeks ago after being "questionable-knee", filling in nicely to help offset Jones absence, and perhaps aggravated the injury after limping off the practice field last week, and is out so far this week. Could be a new DL rotation Sun night.

 

[Mack Herron]

What about Generalissimo Chandler Jones?

you have been asking for this.

 

[kennyb]

I'm sorry, they drafted a guy with a bum knee, actually two bum knees. Not smart.

 

[Onedaful]

I'm sorry, they drafted a guy with a bum knee, actually two bum knees. Not smart.

Following this logic we wouldn't have drafted Gronk because he had back surgery, or a bum back in your case, and missed what, two seasons? He's a risk v. reward type player, why write him off so early? That's just my opinion.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I'm sorry, they drafted a guy with a bum knee, actually two bum knees. Not smart.

Still not smart to have drafted Gronk right?

 

[kennyb]

Gronk was a rare freak of nature and they got him in the second round. No indication that he was congenital y injury prone.

 

[Deus Irae]

Following this logic we wouldn't have drafted Gronk because he had back surgery, or a bum back in your case, and missed what, two seasons? He's a risk v. reward type player, why write him off so early? That's just my opinion.

Still not smart to have drafted Gronk right?

You both realize that there's a strong health-related argument that could be made for saying the Patriots should have taken Jimmy Graham instead of Gronk, right?

 

[Onedaful]

You both realize that there's a strong health-related argument that could be made for saying the Patriots should have taken Jimmy Graham instead of Gronk, right?

What does that have to do with risk v. reward players and not writing someone off too soon?

 

[Deus Irae]

What does that have to do with risk v. reward players and not writing someone off too soon?

When your rejoinder is "They shouldn't have signed Gronk, then", a pretty good answer to that is, "You're right. They could have signed Graham, who's played in 12 more games over the course of their 4+ year careers". You and I might, or might not, agree with that answer in the end, but it's a good one.

 

[50-yard-line]

When your rejoinder is "They shouldn't have signed Gronk, then", a pretty good answer to that is, "You're right. They could have signed Graham, who's played in 12 more games over the course of their 4+ year careers". You and I might, or might not, agree with that answer in the end, but it's a good one.

When both are healthy, Gronk > Graham, and it isn't close. Gronk is a monster blocker. But it's all by-the-by...

If not Easley, then who was their #1 pick? Su'a'Filo? Shazier?

 

[OhExaulted1]

When both are healthy, Gronk > Graham, and it isn't close. Gronk is a monster blocker. But it's all by-the-by...

If not Easley, then who was their #1 pick? Su'a'Filo? Shazier?

Joel Bitonio. Could've saved some headaches. Easly has not lived up to his 1st round pick status thus far. That is indesputable. I haven't thrown in the towel on him yet by any means and if he were a 3rd-4th rounder he would not receive as much scrutiny. Until he begins to excel he will be considered underperforming. Nature of the beast.

 

[RobertWeathers]

When both are healthy, Gronk > Graham, and it isn't close.

When healthy, Gronk is a superior pass/run blocker but to say that another player who has posted just-as-good if not better numbers and creates similar mismatch problems for defenses isn't even a contemporary is off base.

 

[Deus Irae]

When both are healthy, Gronk > Graham, and it isn't close. Gronk is a monster blocker. But it's all by-the-by...

If not Easley, then who was their #1 pick? Su'a'Filo? Shazier?

Gronk's not catching or blocking anything when he's on the shelf, which is the point about injury players. I think you take a shot at some and pass on others, and I'm more than comfortable with what Gronk's done to date, and I'd personally take him over Graham in a re-draft, but 59 Gronk games v. 71 Graham games isn't a slam dunk in favor of Gronk, IMO.

 

[patchick]

You both realize that there's a strong health-related argument that could be made for saying the Patriots should have taken Jimmy Graham instead of Gronk, right?

You mean Ed ****son -- he was the only other TE drafted within a round of Gronk. And yes, ****son would have been the safe choice.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You mean Ed ****son -- he was the only other TE drafted within a round of Gronk. And yes, ****son would have been the safe choice.

...and very average to boot. Dennis Pitta was the better BAL TE in that draft, more oft-injured but more impactful.

 

[goheels22002]

When both are healthy, Gronk > Graham, and it isn't close. Gronk is a monster blocker. But it's all by-the-by...

If not Easley, then who was their #1 pick? Su'a'Filo? Shazier?

Gotta agree with DI here. Gronk is a dominant force, but I believe that the Patriots would have won one more Super Bowl and been in another (2013), had he not been seriously limited by injury or out all together, respectively. Do the Pats win the Super Bowl against the Giants in February 2012 if Graham and Hernandez were on the field as compared to AH and a severely diminished Gronkowski?

2014 looks like another one of those seasons where we hold our collective breath every time he careens through traffic with the ball. The Patriots are a very different team with him on the field vs the one without him. It's great to see him playing healthy again. Knock on wood.

 

[patchick]

Gotta agree with DI here. Gronk is a dominant force, but I believe that the Patriots would have won one more Super Bowl and been in another (2013), had he not been seriously limited by injury or out all together, respectively. Do the Pats win the Super Bowl against the Giants in February 2012 if Graham and Hernandez were on the field as compared to AH and a severely diminished Gronkowski?

Again, the choice was never Gronk or Graham -- that's 20/20 hindsight, cherry-picking the best possible alternative. Jimmy Graham was a basketball player trying to convert to football. The TEs selected after Gronkowski were Ed ****son and Tony Moeoki.