If Gronk played would PATS have beat BENGALS?

[PatsFan2]

Probably ...

that being said I am concerned that Gronk is being perceived as our silver bullet.

Gronk WITH another tight end may prove very challenging for other teams but so far we don't have another tight end to step up once Gronk gets back.
We thought we did and then we released him.

This team is what it's record says it is...but we have a very very long way to go...with and especially without Gronk.

DA - JE-Slot -Gronk TE and a Healthy Collie as the other WR. Remember before his concussions Collie was well on his way to becoming a proven WR in this league. At full strenght or Healthy I think Collie is just as good or better than Armendola. Ofcourse time will tell but both came in the league at the same time as posted similar numbers. Just think of it like this we have replaced AHern with a WR which should give us more speed on Offense.

 

[Oswlek]

Yep, either his blocking or his presence as a red zone target could have helped.

I think the offensive woes on Sunday were a total breakdown where the line, the backs, the receivers and the QB all played poorly. They've had games like this in the past with a healthy Gronk and lost so there's no reason to think he'd have been enough to turn things around in this one.

You could make the argument that simply Ridley or Vereen would have made a big difference, let alone a guy who is one of the best 20 players in the entire league.

I agree that they've had plenty of stinkers with Gronk, but it is a stretch to say there is "no reason to think" having him would have made a difference. That is taking objectivity and stretching it to the absurd.

Of course, in our fantasy scenario Gronk is fully healthy, which he will most likely need a few games to work into. If we are assuming only ~20 snaps of diminished value, then it is reasonable to think NE would still have lost. But it certainly would have been more interesting! Hell, just a TD on the 1 yard line and NE is driving for a FG at the end instead of having to force a TD. Very slim margin.

 

[Zeus]

You could make the argument that simply Ridley or Vereen would have made a big difference, let alone a guy who is one of the best 20 players in the entire league.

I agree that they've had plenty of stinkers with Gronk, but it is a stretch to say there is "no reason to think" having him would have made a difference. That is taking objectivity and stretching it to the absurd.

Of course, in our fantasy scenario Gronk is fully healthy, which he will most likely need a few games to work into. If we are assuming only ~20 snaps of diminished value, then it is reasonable to think NE would still have lost. But it certainly would have been more interesting! Hell, just a TD on the 1 yard line and NE is driving for a FG at the end instead of having to force a TD. Very slim margin.

Just to be clear, I absolutely agree that he would have made a difference, but don't think he would have made the difference. Hope that makes sense ...

 

[DaBronxPats14]

This is what happens when your down starting players from injuries. Options are limited. Play calling on 1/2 yard line with 3 downs was crazy I bet McD would take a mulligan in that spot again and speakin of Mulligan, where was he and why was Soldier out there doin a bizarro imitation of Vrabel?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Yes, but if he was too injured to play, then he was too injured to play. If losing that game is the cost of making sure that he's good to go, then you just have to hope that it was the right call and move forward. Not a huge fan of second-guessing this stuff, especially when the team went 4-1 without him.

On a similar note, I think the Pats would have won if Amendola was more in sync, or of Vereen was playing, or Wilfork. We also could have easily lost by more if Leon Hall or Michael Johnson was playing. So it goes.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

Gronk I think would be find for running routes and catching passes. The issue will come to his blocking skills. How much strength does he have? Can he block like gronk can. But I hope he comes and plays Sunday, we need him to convert 3rd downs and score some gronk Tds!!

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I would say no. One player makes a difference, but not that much. If we had only been throwing to Gronk, they would have double or triple covered him, and we would be forced to throw to someone else. The Bengals just played a great defensive game.

 

[goheels22002]

Nate Solder looked like a solid Gronk replacement, so I doubt it.

With Gronk in there, the Solder play would have never been called, the Bengals would have had to account for Gronk on running plays, keeping them on the edge longer wherever he lined up, and Brady could have run the stack play with Amendola, Edelman, and Gronk where all three are threats. So many options open up with Gronkowski on the field.

 

[DarrylS]

Thought that these were they types of things we talked about off season....

What would have happened if???

 

[BlueThunder]

I like the fact that the Pats are 4-1 and 2-0 in the Division WITHOUT Gronk playing one snap yet.



On track for an 11 or 12 win season.


I am an optimist.

 

[patsfanincleveland]

This is what happens when your down starting players from injuries. Options are limited. Play calling on 1/2 yard line with 3 downs was crazy I bet McD would take a mulligan in that spot again and speakin of Mulligan, where was he and why was Soldier out there doin a bizarro imitation of Vrabel?

Such a simple concept.

Hard to imagine why not having the best players makes people think a unit should do just as well.

A Patriots offense armed with a healthy Gronk, DA, Ridley, and Vereen will mean 30+ points against Cincy.

Adding back guys will be multiplication by addition.

 

[ahmed]

Yes... Was also first time I got mad at him for being off so long (if he could have come back sooner but didn't want to)