Why the Pats Can’t Win the Super Bowl Without Rob Gronkowski

[Kid~Brady]

Great in depth article with pictures explaining what we seemingly already know about Gronk.... and why we need him healthy down the stretch.

The New England Patriots have now played—and won—two games without All-Pro TE Rob Gronkowski. Life without Gronk hasn’t been devastating for the Pats, and old adages hold firm: The rest of the offense must continue to “step up“ in his absence. But don’t let the early returns fool you into thinking the Pats don’t need Gronk.

Yes, the Pats are an elite team, one whose success is predicated on a balanced offense and an opportunistic defense. But Gronkowski is an instrumental part of New England’s system, and the Pats will need his irreplaceable skill set to advance through the AFC’s elite and bring home a fourth Lombardi Trophy.

Why the Pats Can't Win the Super Bowl Without Rob Gronkowski » Ex-Pats

 

[Sciz]

Well they won't have to unless he gets hurt again

 

[Bhelmet]

I do not know what we can accomplish without Gronk, but he makes BOTH our running and passing game better. With him, our odds rise; without him, it is a toss up. We can overcome the loss of Gronk, but I hope we do not have to find out how tough that would be.

 

[DocHoliday]

I think we can win without him - we nearly won the SB without Gronk, it's just we'd need to literally put up massive rushing numbers to do so.

 

[RodThePat]

They obviously can win a Superbowl without Gronkowski, but their offensive philosophy is pretty much predicated on both Tight-Ends being on the field, so when he's out, it's only reasonable to expect the offense to sputter a bit, as it has to adjust pretty much on the fly. If, say, Gronkowski's career ended today and the Patriots had a whole offseason to prepare for life without Gronk, I'd wager they'd invest more on outside receivers, and completely revamp their playbook and offensive tendencies. In short: they obviously can win without Gronk, but Rob is such an integral part of what they do on offense that adjusting to him not being there midseason is a pretty tough task.

 

[Bhelmet]

Rushing is HUGE - but so is our D - especially or CB's - who have improved as of late and I believe will get better as experience is gained. As guys get healthy, and stop messing with the PED's, our rush should improve also. Those are our keys, IMO.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

No disrespect to the Gronk,but there are only 2 players on this team that they can't win a Super Bowl without them.

Those 2 guys are Tom Brady and Vincent Wilfork .... everyone else can be made up by depth somehow.

 

[D-Money]

Well they need Gronk because this team needs more production besides Welker.They also need him on the field before the playoffs begin.To knock the rust.

 

[moejr]

We won 3 SB's with less talent. Gronk is vital but not essential for us to win another SB.

 

[D-Money]

Yes but lets not forget those teams played well defensively.Also they ran the ball well consistently.Those teams gel well.

 

[RayClay]

I think this is turning into the fortune telling forum. We can lose two games, we can't lose any games, we can't in without Gronk etc. ha ha.

Gronk is our best offensive player besides Tom, so of course it would be harder. On the other hand, we loaded up at the position, so we can run the offense and still have a superior threat in Hernandez if it came to that. Although it's not obvious, I think our other weapons are much better, even without Lloyd breaking out. He's still had a good season, Welker's playing great and the unfortunate loss of edelman doesn't compare because he wasn't much of a factor last year (except on defense).

Our running game is much better, even if some of the players are the same. ridley's playing lights out, I think vereen can pick up some receiving slack if needed, we have a tough runner in Bolden and Woodhead is better, because he was playing in a fog the end of last year. I just feel we've ot more wapons ayto go if needed than last year.

Of course, you can always win it if you're in it. Once in the playoffs it's only a few games and that ball isn't round, it takes funy bounces.

Plus our defense might be much better. It could be just coming together. There really wasn't a physical reason to expect that last year with the refugees we had in the secondary.

 

[patsfan13]

Well we certainly can win without Gronk, it is just that we have a better chance winning with him than without him.

 

[ausbacker]

We won 3 SB's with less talent. Gronk is vital but not essential for us to win another SB.

There was a more even spread on the Superbowl teams than the current team. I don't agree with your statement.

The Superbowl D's were full of talent. The current D is working to that.

 

[randomk1]

I tend to agree. Gronk's absence was noticeable vs miami. The guy is really the only physical mismatch we have in the sense that he can be covered and still be open.

AH,Wes,Lloyd don't have that.

 

[stcjones]

No disrespect to the Gronk,but there are only 2 players on this team that they can't win a Super Bowl without them.

Those 2 guys are Tom Brady and Vincent Wilfork .... everyone else can be made up by depth somehow.

I think you forgot one other person....
Bill Belichick! Come on man!!

 

[goheels22002]

No disrespect to the Gronk,but there are only 2 players on this team that they can't win a Super Bowl without them.

Those 2 guys are Tom Brady and Vincent Wilfork .... everyone else can be made up by depth somehow.

I'd put two other guys on that list - Wes Welker and Jerod Mayo.

 

[manxman2601]

I'd put two other guys on that list - Wes Welker and Jerod Mayo.

There is one rather important member of the Pats missing - a rather important catalyst that turned the Pats from a team that never won a SB to one that won three. A clue? his initials are BB.

 

[Kid~Brady]

We won 3 SB's with less talent. Gronk is vital but not essential for us to win another SB.

We also didn't have the 29th ranked defense back then as well. The team is predicated to leaning more on the offense and we know it. When teams, such as this week's opponent, the Texans, play the Patriots and use this team as a measuring stick.... we all know thats based on Tom Brady and the offense, not the defense.

Gronk not being out there presents much relief for defensive coordinators.

 

[Kid~Brady]

There is one rather important member of the Pats missing - a rather important catalyst that turned the Pats from a team that never won a SB to one that won three. A clue? his initials are BB.

True, but lets stick specifically with players, not coaches. We all know BB is the cog that makes this thing go from the start but the debate is about which players are inperative to have for a superbowl run.

 

[manxman2601]

True, but lets stick specifically with players, not coaches. We all know BB is the cog that makes this thing go from the start but the debate is about which players are inperative to have for a superbowl run.

My point is, that apart from BB and TB, no player is absolutely necessary to win the SB. We can scheme around the loss of WW and RG. Vince is a great player but I'm not convinced we'd suffer to such an extent that it would be impossible to win a SB.

In fact, I'd suggest that McCourty might be the most important cog. Since his switch to safety, our propensity to give up the long ball is severely reduced and those were potential game killers.