Would you trade Gronk for a 1st round pick, this offseason?

[PF_SU]

Also, a thing about Gronk's injuries, it's true, his back is scary and in the future his snaps and usage in the regular season needs to be closely monitored. But, this season is the first time since college that he didn't finish a season because of his back. This is something that's always bothered me a bit when talking about Gronk to be injury prone. Most of his season-ending injuries were just bad luck instead of something that could have been expected. Going through his pro career:

2010: Played 16 regular season games plus playoffs fully healthy.

2011: Played 16 regular season games plus playoffs, hobbled in the Super Bowl because of a sprained ankle courtesy of Bernard Pollard. Happens. Brady played Super Bowl XLII with a severely sprained ankle as well.

2012: Played 10 regular season games before that freak accident resulted in his broken arm on ST against Indianapolis. Rushed back too early in the regular season finale against Miami and re-broke his arm which led to severe complications. Also had a back surgery in the offseason.

2013: Returned in October after finally putting the arm thing behind him, played 7 games until TJ Ward turned into a missile and took out his knee.

2014: Played 15 regular season games before getting rest in the finale against Buffalo and the playoffs fully healthy.

2015: Played 15 regular season games, missed one game after getting hit in the knee against Denver, fully healthy in the playoffs.

2016: Played 8 regular season games, sat out one game after that crushing hit by Earl Thomas before getting shut down because of his back after the first Jets game.

Seven seasons in the league, four basically fully healthy, once the victim of a dirty play, once victim of a freak accident, and only this season victim of his own back. You really can't pin-point one thing that's the main reason why Gronk was not on the field in the past. Yes, as I said at the start, his back is getting worrisome, but I don't like lumping his entire injury history into one and describing him as "injury-prone".

 

[Love The Drake]

Seriously? You can't base an argument on presupposition. I think Bell is overrated and plays a position that is not terribly important these days. Watt, while not injury prone, does have back problem and will be almost 29 by the time next years Super Bowl is played. I think he will be a good player, maybe even a great one in spots, but I think his days of dominance are over. And Reed who? Are you talking about Jordan Reed from the Redskins? Why on Earth would we want him? He's not even as good as Bennett. Are you just listing guys you think are injury prone? Come on, you can do better than that.

Obviously we want a talented player who can stay on the field. That would be the entire point of trading one of the best TEs to ever play the game.

By the way, has everybody forgotten about Ben Coates? How dominant he was and how clearly better than big mouth Sharpe he was? All this talk about Gronk being the greatest TE ever and Coates doesn't even come up? If Gronk is better it's not by a ton. Coates was a beast.

I loved Coates but Gronk is a better player than Coates.
Coates never went in the endzone with multiple players hanging off his back.
Its really unfair to judge Gronk has a huge advantage in the fact during Coates prime he could be mugged grabbed in his route.
Gronk barely can be touched by defenses due to stupid rule changes.
However Gronk is definitely a better receiver route runner but Coates was a favorite of mine.
Was very sad when BB released him and was disappointed when he was a Raven

 

[PF_SU]

Gronk barely can be touched by defenses due to stupid rule changes.

I see him getting mugged all the time without call. The Shaq-effect at work.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

i would trade him for the 1st overall pick.

 

[Minitron]

No, and if only for two firsts, a fourth, 1.5 million dollars and 4 games of Brady.

 

[luuked]

His back surgery was by NFL standards routine and will be given a clean bill of health by OTAs

The point is that there is no more margin for another back injury with Gronk. So any hard hit or awkward landing could potentially end his career. Is it likely ? Not likely as he had no "major" back issues in the past 6-7 years but the bottomline is that the next back injury could be the end.

 

[billdog3484]

I would not trade Gronk for a 1st round pick. Next year we have him for a good deal and he has no leverage to ask for more money. I know he has trouble staying healthy but when he is healthy is one of the most destructive forces on the offensive side of the ball. I would keep him until his current deal is up.

Would you trade Gronk for a 1st?

YOU ON DRUGS...id consider keeping him inactive until the playoffs more than id consider trading him

 

[RobertWeathers]

The point is that there is no more margin for another back injury with Gronk. So any hard hit or awkward landing could potentially end his career. Is it likely ? Not likely as he had no "major" back issues in the past 6-7 years but the bottomline is that the next back injury could be the end.

News to me his is one hit away from being done.

Has that been medically stated by someone?

 

[luuked]

News to me his is one hit away from being done.

Has that been medically stated by someone?

Each of Gronk's three back surgeries was on a different disc level. If he'd re-injure any of those it would require a fusion which according to Chao & co. would most probably be the end of his career.



Now I know that there are considerably more than 3 discs in a spine but I assume that a certain segment of those discs is under more wear and tear during a normal NFL game than others (i.e. the strain on discs is not uniform, but some are under more stress than others).

Like I said in my previous post.. is it very likely ? No.. and yet one bad hit or awkward landing could still be it. Add in his history of back surgeries and you just can't shake that concerned feeling.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No. You acquire first round picks in hopes that you might get a player who's capable of being half as good as Gronk. So whatever upside there is to a first rounder--mainly cost control and health--that's more than outweighed by the downside of a draft pick: that he's unproven and almost certainly won't be the GOAT at his position.

There are a lot of risks with Gronk going forward, we're all aware of that. He might never recover all the way, and even if he does you pretty much have to bank on him missing a handful of games a year. At this point, if we get 12 regular season games and he's healthy enough to be on the field in the playoffs I call it a win. But he's still worth more than a first rounder.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Each of Gronk's three back surgeries was on a different disc level. If he'd re-injure any of those it would require a fusion which according to Chao & co. would most probably be the end of his career.



Now I know that there are considerably more than 3 discs in a spine but I assume that a certain segment of those discs is under more wear and tear during a normal NFL game than others (i.e. the strain on discs is not uniform, but some are under more stress than others).

Like I said in my previous post.. is it very likely ? No.. and yet one bad hit or awkward landing could still be it. Add in his history of back surgeries and you just can't shake that concerned feeling.

I don't know how Chao does it but he seems to be right with these things.

 

[PatsPwn44]

Absolutely not. He has proven what he can do and will do, most 1st rounders end up in the gutter in 3 years after contributing nothing.

As far as injury prone is, this is something I do not believe in; for most players. Giving his size, position, and the tactics that the defense has to take on him, there may be some merit there. But not for a 1st round possible bust.

Every player is injured from game 1, it's just the severity of it. Not so lucky is what I'd call it with Gronk.

 

[obgod3]

NO

 

[deroc5050]

YOU ON DRUGS...id consider keeping him inactive until the playoffs more than id consider trading him

So we agree that we shouldn't trade him? And yet you ask me if I am on drugs.. I DON"T UNDERSTAND YOU

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

No. You acquire first round picks in hopes that you might get a player who's capable of being half as good as Gronk. So whatever upside there is to a first rounder--mainly cost control and health--that's more than outweighed by the downside of a draft pick: that he's unproven and almost certainly won't be the GOAT at his position.

There are a lot of risks with Gronk going forward, we're all aware of that. He might never recover all the way, and even if he does you pretty much have to bank on him missing a handful of games a year. At this point, if we get 12 regular season games and he's healthy enough to be on the field in the playoffs I call it a win. But he's still worth more than a first rounder.

My sentiment exactly, except that I'd add in the fact that Gronk's contract was already structured around the risk his injury history presents. If Gronk were being paid a bigger portion of the cap, in line with his healthy productivity level, then a trade would have the added benefit of being able to retain different players [e.g., Hightower, etc.].

Maybe the closest analogy we have would be the Richard Seymour trade. When Belichick traded him in Sep. 09 Seymour was a 29 year old 3x 1st Team All-Pro, 5x Pro-Bowler, All-Decade Team member - his trade yielded a 1st rounder in 2011 (Nate Solder). Moreover, Seymour was in the last year of his deal, looking for a final big payout. Lastly, the team was in what we can now see was a rebuilding year [ which Belichick et al. plausibly knew to be the case.] 2009 Patriots went 10-6 and were wiped off the field by Baltimore in the Wild Card round.

Making the Seymour -> Gronk comparison: Gronk will be 28 next season, is under contract in a team-oriented deal through 2019 (patscap page link), and the roster generally feels to be in a [much] better place than the 09 team.

The comparison I've made does suffer in that Seymour did miss games / play hurt here and there due to injury, but nothing in the same ball park as the complicated injury situation that Gronk has. I'm also making an apples to oranges comparison between a probable HOF DT and possibly the best TE to ever play.

 

[bormio]

#1 and #32 are both 1st round picks.

#32 is not even worth discussing.

We're gonna have #32 anyway. Let's see - win the SB, get a high #1 for Jimmy, a #1 for Gronk and our own #1. Roger would have to enter an asylum.
BTW, no on trading Gronk for a #1.

 

[deroc5050]

With the defense playing how it is.. and how diverse the offense is now.. imagine we could just add Gronk back into the playoff roster. We go from heavy favorites.. to bet 100 dollars and win 10$ for a Pats Super Bowl win.

 

[Big Bucks]

No.. I'd give him a new contract. And as someone else said, only use him in the playoffs.

 

[therealmattheew]

It's hard to say because he seems to never be healthy for the playoffs. Once I started noticing Gronk couldn't stay healthy for a season years back. I told myself why don't they just sit him out for the whole season and play him during the playoffs, that would never happen but to answer your question at this point in his career I think it would be the right thing to do. Next season should be his last year in New England IMO.

 

[deroc5050]

It's hard to say because he seems to never be healthy for the playoffs. Once I started noticing Gronk couldn't stay healthy for a season years back. I told myself why don't they just sit him out for the whole season and play him during the playoffs, that would never happen but to answer your question at this point in his career I think it would be the right thing to do. Next season should be his last year in New England IMO.

Well if Gronk lights it up in 2017 has 12 TD's and 1200 yrds and stays healthy.. I bet the Pats keep him. BUT if he goes down again in 2017 the Pats will want to restructure his deal and even though at that point he probably won't have the leverage to negotiate.. I can see them splitting ways sadly.

The bottom line is you just can't really depend on Gronk to be there for you at the end of the year.