PatriotSeven
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,906
- Reaction score
- 182
What in the world are you talking about?
This move has nothing to do with Gronk, however, considering that we would only have 1 TE, it would follow that if Gronk were not going to be active, Underwood would have been, just so there were enough bodies at recevier in case of injury.
I think your logic is backward.
Not really. It depends on their game strategy and nobody knows what that might be.
When you lose efficiency at a position, it doesn't necessarily mean the best way to maintain team-wide efficiency is by finding a replacement for that position.
It may mean improving it in a completely different area and doing something completely different.
I.E. If you lose Brady, won't make much of a difference who you start at QB. Nobody will come close. You're better off bolstering your defense.
Which is what this smells like to me.
Last edited: