Gronk had 7 targets in 25 pass attempts. For the season he averaged 8 in about 39.
You watched the game, right? In the first half, all they did was run the ball again and again and again and again and again. Brady threw 5 times. The lowest number in his career. Gronk played, but only blocked. It was in the second half, when they realized that they kinda needed to, you know, throw, to win the game, that they tried to get Gronk involved in the passing game.
You cannot seriously be arguing that this game plan was "normal". Like, at all.
They used him just as much as normal. If they were trying to prevent injuries why have Brady out there?
Given what the offense has done in the last month what do you think would have worked better? I agree they didn't try to lose, that's my point. What they did yesterday was their best.
No it wasn't. Not at all. There is ZERO chance, Andy, that if this was the AFCCG, they would have run 21 times vs. 5 passes in the first half of that game. Zero. Chance.
It is consistent with what they have done for a month.
Tell me another game in the BB/TB era - EVER - where they ran 21 times compared to 5 passes in the first half. Or even came close to that ratio.
How were they 'limiting the risk of injury". That makes no sense. Failing means you don't get hurt?
Not running Gronk down the seams so he gets his knees taken out is trying to limit the risk of injury. Not having Brady drop back 40 times is limiting the risk of injury. Not running Amendola, already hobbling, on crossing patterns is limiting the risk of injury. The safest way to go about it was to run, run, run, run, run. They hoped that would still be enough to win. Only when they realized that it wasn't did they try to throw more. This is so painfully obvious I can't believe you are arguing otherwise.
BB has shown over the last month + that he considers his offense a liability. Why would he do anything different? You are back to arguing he knew he could win but chose not to try. It can't be to 'limit injuries' because Brady and Gronk would have sat.
I never, ever, ever said they "chose not to try". You must have me confused with someone else. They had two objectives: (1) Win. And (2) limit the risk of injury. If they simply played backups and sat Brady, Gronk, etc., they knew they couldn't win. So those guys had to play. But they thought an ultra conservative game plan would probably still be enough to win, and at the same time it would minimize the risk of injury *while still hoping to win*. He tried the ultra conservative route and it didn't work. So he tried to open it up more in the second half, but it wasn't enough.