New Reports that Gronk will be ready for Season Opener!!!

[Rob0729]

You don't win or lose division titles in September....if he ain't 100% of the dominating Gronk,you sit him.

Plain and simple.......

Even if the team goes as bad as 3-3 without him,the season has a long way to go

If Houston didn't implode at the end of last year, the loss in September to a horrible Cardinals team would have kept the Pats from a bye. Games in September mean something.

I disagree Gronk has to be 100%. Clearly you don't play him if he is far from 100%, but if he is 80-90% it might be the right thing to let him play himself back into form because it could take months or even most of the season for him to be back to 100%.

You don't rush him back, but you play him if he is close enough to back to full form.

The "don't let him play unless he is 100%" argument was used by many on this board on both Brady and Welker when they came back from serious injuries. Neither were 100% the entire seasons they played, but neither missed a single game.

 

[Salva135]

If Houston didn't implode at the end of last year, the loss in September to a horrible Cardinals team would have kept the Pats from a bye. Games in September mean something.

I disagree Gronk has to be 100%. Clearly you don't play him if he is far from 100%, but if he is 80-90% it might be the right thing to let him play himself back into form because it could take months or even most of the season for him to be back to 100%.

You don't rush him back, but you play him if he is close enough to back to full form.

The "don't let him play unless he is 100%" argument was used by many on this board on both Brady and Welker when they came back from serious injuries. Neither were 100% the entire seasons they played, but neither missed a single game.

+1

The people arguing to "save" Gronk for the playoffs are assuming that 1) the Pats will automatically make the playoffs without Gronk playing for a large portion of the season and 2) that all playoff spots are created equal. As soon as Gronk is medically cleared to play, he needs to play. You can ease him into the lineup, of course. It's one thing if the Pats' offense is lighting it up without Gronk, but I find it hard to believe even a less than 100% Gronk wouldn't make a massive difference.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

If Houston didn't implode at the end of last year, the loss in September to a horrible Cardinals team would have kept the Pats from a bye. Games in September mean something.

I disagree Gronk has to be 100%. Clearly you don't play him if he is far from 100%, but if he is 80-90% it might be the right thing to let him play himself back into form because it could take months or even most of the season for him to be back to 100%.

You don't rush him back, but you play him if he is close enough to back to full form.

The "don't let him play unless he is 100%" argument was used by many on this board on both Brady and Welker when they came back from serious injuries. Neither were 100% the entire seasons they played, but neither missed a single game.

Agreed. As you say, you don't rush it, but if we didn't let players play while less than 100%, we wouldn't have a team by mid October.

 

[captain insano]

everytime gronk gets hit or is tackled ill be holding my breath.

 

[Joker]

everytime gronk gets hit or is tackled ill be holding my breath.

well then..you'll need a new handle...how about ..captain blue-in-the-face?

 

[kennyb]

Still think they'll pup him. It would take him a month of practices to be in game shape.

 

[Kid~Brady]

This... was.... freagin great.

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Still think they'll pup him. It would take him a month of practices to be in game shape.

If it took a month of practices before he could play, that would put him returning in Week 10, since he wouldn't be able to practice until after Week 6. I think they would eat the roster spot in that case and let him work himself back as the season started.

 

[resdubwhite]

Still think they'll pup him. It would take him a month of practices to be in game shape.

Why not just put him in the 53 and make him an inactive. THey're probably carrying another 4 TE's in the roster anyway.

 

[Sicilian]

If Houston didn't implode at the end of last year, the loss in September to a horrible Cardinals team would have kept the Pats from a bye. Games in September mean something.

I disagree Gronk has to be 100%. Clearly you don't play him if he is far from 100%, but if he is 80-90% it might be the right thing to let him play himself back into form because it could take months or even most of the season for him to be back to 100%.

You don't rush him back, but you play him if he is close enough to back to full form.

The "don't let him play unless he is 100%" argument was used by many on this board on both Brady and Welker when they came back from serious injuries. Neither were 100% the entire seasons they played, but neither missed a single game.

Good summary. I think it's important to make the distinction between not being 100% and being at risk or re-injury. If there's a chance he good re-injure his back or arm by coming back to soon, ok, sit him until he's ready. But I'm guessing it's going to take actual games to get him back to being 100% of the Gronk we know, so you have to let him take his lumps early.