Redskins Postgame Thread

[Bruins29]

I think what DI is saying is that even if Gronk is out you can re-gameplan around it with Brady. You use Chandler and use more wideouts. You would feature Lewis (assume is was not also out). In other words, you still have a TB led offense just without Gronk.

Without TB you have a Jimmy G led offense. Pardon me, but I dont think I would have anywhere near the same confidence in that, as I would in a TB led offense without any weapon,

 

[DaBruinz]

On a positive note, LaFell looked fantastic today.

And I do think that the coaches took the foot off the accelerator offensively once the pats got 20 points up.

Umm.. after they went up 17-3, the offense went vanilla because of Vollmer being out. This put Fleming in at LT (he had never played there at any level) and Stork at RT. And, according to Fleming after the game, they hadn't practiced with that set of personnel all week.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think what DI is saying is that even if Gronk is out you can re-gameplan around it with Brady. You use Chandler and use more wideouts. You would feature Lewis (assume is was not also out). In other words, you still have a TB led offense just without Gronk.

Without TB you have a Jimmy G led offense. Pardon me, but I dont think I would have anywhere near the same confidence in that, as I would in a TB led offense without any weapon,

Except that isn't the definition of plug-n-play. Plug-n-play means you don't have to change the offense at all. And that just isn't the case with Gronk.

 

[Bruins29]

Except that isn't the definition of plug-n-play. Plug-n-play means you don't have to change the offense at all. And that just isn't the case with Gronk.

I dont think you would have to change the O that much. Chandler becomes the guy. You just done have a big weapon.

Now, without Brady what do you do?

 

[DaBruinz]

I dont think you would have to change the O that much. Chandler becomes the guy. You just done have a big weapon.

Now, without Brady what do you do?

I disagree. Chandler isn't nearly the weapon that Gronkowski is. I think that Chandler is a poor man's Hernandez. Chandler isn't nearly the blocker that Gronk is and isn't definitely isn't the receiver that Gronk is. His hands have been less than impressive.

 

[Bruins29]

I disagree. Chandler isn't nearly the weapon that Gronkowski is. I think that Chandler is a poor man's Hernandez. Chandler isn't nearly the blocker that Gronk is and isn't definitely isn't the receiver that Gronk is. His hands have been less than impressive.

Ok nobody would disagree. Like I said, without Gronk there isnt one poster on here would would say this team still couldnt go all the way.

Without Brady people would be committing suicide. You know it, I know it, the board knows it.

Like he said the other day. The Pats have a system = TB

 

[supafly]

No it doesn't. He won't put Dion Lewis on IR if there's even a 10% chance he can make it back in time for the Super Bowl. He's that guy.

This is what we'd like to think as fans, but it's no sure thing that Belichick sets aside a precious roster spot at a position that he's historically stock piled and viewed as interchangeable, especially when you're claiming that he'd be planning for one game in the Super Bowl.

For a handful of players like Gronk, Brady, etc--sure. Not as sure about Dion Lewis, even though he has shown talent and is our best RB. We'll have to see, but I don't think it's quite as much of a sure thing as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[RobertWeathers]

In this offense, every position except QB is plug-n-play.

All with varying outcomes of production and outcomes.

Gronk is irreplaceable.

 

[DaBruinz]

Why am I not surprised that Marqui disagrees with the assessment of Chandler. His homer blinders must be working overtime.

 

[DaBruinz]

All with varying outcomes of production and outcomes.

Gronk is irreplaceable.

Not according to Marqui...

 

[TheFlyingWedge]

I can't believe Washington beat Philly - the skins don't even look capable of winning a coin flip.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

All with varying outcomes of production and outcomes.

Gronk is irreplaceable.

They did win 3 Super Bowls without Gronk.

 

[DaBruinz]

They did win 3 Super Bowls without Gronk.

And this offense is nothing like those 3.

 

[Bruins29]

And this offense is nothing like those 3.

Brady is playing better than he was when he won SBs with less.

Tom Brady can win a SB with this team without Gronk.

 

[VrabelJr]

Weirdest post game thread ever.

 

[fightingirish595]

Brady is playing better than he was when he won SBs with less.

Tom Brady can win a SB with this team without Gronk.

Agree but i would not like our chances. He changes everything. A healthy Gronk in 2011,2012,2013 and I think Brady would atleast have a 5th. this team is better than any of those teams, But the offense without Gronk just is not the same. We do not have a deep threat

 

[Deus Irae]

All with varying outcomes of production and outcomes.

Gronk is irreplaceable.

The Patriots came within minutes of a SB win without Gronk in 2011, despite having a Godawful secondary.

Only Brady is essential to this Patriots team.

 

[Marqui]

The Patriots came within minutes of a SB win without Gronk in 2011, despite having a Godawful secondary.

Only Brady is essential to this Patriots team.

Gronk is too, they're not winning squat (a SB) without him.

 

[Deus Irae]

Gronk is too, they're not winning squat without him.

To repeat:

The Patriots came within minutes of a SB win without Gronk in 2011, despite having a Godawful secondary. The idea that they can't win without him is simply a fantasy. He's important, not essential.

 

[fightingirish595]

To repeat:

The Patriots came within minutes of a SB win without Gronk in 2011, despite having a Godawful secondary. The idea that they can't win without him is simply a fantasy. He's important, not essential.

Can't is a bit of stretch, but the task becomes incredibly more difficult without him