Post Game Thread - Pats beat Vikings

[PatriotsReign]

He's long talked about "one more year" (this year,) not ruling out another year, but certainly not regarding it as guaranteed (by either party.)

And he's often hurt a lot. The question is really when he's hurt. It's a surprise bonus when we get to the SB and Gronk is healthy.

That said, he doesn't exactly play it safe out there. Physical style, physical pain.

All true and when you have a freakish body like his that can run at speeds small guys do, you’re going to get hurt.

Most “normal” people that are 6’6” have more aches & pains that 6’ and smaller people don’t get.

 

[1960Pats]

Considering the Patriots almost traded the guy the safe assumption is that the business relationship isn't exactly perfect. Dismissing news reports that go along with that as fake news seems more about not wanting to hear it than any real belief in rigorous journalistic standards.

Rushing to call the Gronk story stuff 'fake news' just sounds like the person is angry because they don't like the news they're reading.

Of course I can only speak for myself, but I can assure you I don't get angry over football.

My problem is the poster (with the name Fatmancryin no less) who said that I was crying over defamegate when I was only using that as an example of why I don't trust "news reports."

When I hear Gronk say he's retiring is when I'll believe it.

 

[Deus Irae]

He was hit after he released the pass. But you can tell he was affected be seeing the pressure out of the corners of his eyes

Yeah, I knew he saw the pressure. I just couldn't remember whether that forced a (clean) bad pass, or it was a bad pass aided by contact, so thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Wheelman]

Considering the Patriots almost traded the guy the safe assumption is that the business relationship isn't exactly perfect. Dismissing news reports that go along with that as fake news seems more about not wanting to hear it than any real belief in rigorous journalistic standards.

Rushing to call the Gronk story stuff 'fake news' just sounds like the person is angry because they don't like the news they're reading.

Fair point, but can you blame us? We've seen the media lie again and again and pushing agenda's for whoever has influence on them. There's no trust with the media as far as I'm concerned. In particular when it comes to the Patriots. So I'll be skeptical of anything the media says about the Pats even if some of that is true. The media did this with their lack of integrity.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[maineman209]

The Vikings have a gunslinger with two great WRs. Combined they did great against other team and zero against the Pats. I think our defensive plan and the execution was the best we have seen this season. As for our offense that still needs work to catch up. As far as the Jets that was a so so game for the Pats on both sides IMO. Going into the game we should have blown them away. I don't think 14 points difference is blown away. As for the Bills now Allen is QB and his running is something we need to consider. I think they are a bigger problem than the Fins, and the Jets in our remaining schedule. That's not to say we won't win. IMO it will be the tougher game of three mentioned So overall I don't agree that the Vikings offense is equal to the others you mentioned. We contained them that's why they didn't look impressive and maybe looked like the offense of the Jets, Fins and Bills without Allen. BTW Bills have a great defense.

I'm not sure that we're disagreeing on much, if anything at all.

Your take on the Bills is exactly what I've been saying for the past couple of weeks. As of two weeks ago, their pass defense was top-5 and their run defense at least top-10 ... which is why the Pats scored only 18 on them in Buffalo. The Pats "held" them to six points with Derek Anderson at QB. Different story with a QB like Allen and his excellent mobility. If not for shooting themselves in the foot with giveaways and about 100 stupid penalties, the Bills should have stomped on the 'Fins. If the Bills clean enough of that ish up by wk-16, they could be trouble for the Pats.

The 'Fins didn't have anything for the Pats on offense or on defense when they played in wk-4. As far as I can tell, nothing much has changed with them since.

Going into the Jets game, the Jets actually had a decent pass defense: 5th in completion rate allowed (62.3%), 7th in passer rating (88.0) and 7th in passing yards/attempt (7.2). But their run-D sucked balls. So, the Pats just ran the crap out of the ball and played a little conservatively with the passing attack, which often results in lower scoring. The Pats offense put up 27, which was more than enough, given they way they controlled the game.

With the Vikes, the bottom line is that they have a great defense, and Theilen and Diggs, but not much else on offense. They were averaging 22 offensive points per game. It's not on the Pats that only the Bills, Saints and Bears had previously figured out how to keep the Vikes' offense below that number and reduce the effectiveness of their only two real difference makers. That's why I thought (post-game) that maybe the Vikes' offense had been a little over-hyped. In retrospect, they were (potentially) "better" than the Bills, 'Fins and Jets offenses the Pats had faced, just not significantly so. The Pats defense certainly had to play a cleaner, more disciplined game to get there, that's all. Meanwhile, the Pats again played it fairly conservative on offense to minimize the Vikes' offensive opportunities.

Anyway, I don't think the Pats offense "needs work to catch up". I think they've played conservatively the past two games (and still won both by 2 TDs. They may not be as conservative against the 'Fins.

 

[fnordcircle]

Fair point, but can you blame us? We've seen the media lie again and again and pushing agenda's for whoever has influence on them. There's no trust with the media as far as I'm concerned. In particular when it comes to the Patriots. So I'll be skeptical of anything the media says about the Pats even if some of that is true. The media did this with their lack of integrity.

Your use of 'the media' as a catchall is too broad. There's going to be a huge difference between Mr. In-The-League's-Back-Pocket at ESPN and a guy who has been in the area covering the team for decades (didn't he start in the 90s?) like Curran. Someone who knows the team inside and out, has contacts galore, etc.

People's rush to dismiss him or cast him as having some sort of mid life crisis that changed him into a fake news spewing monkey seems entirely about not liking what he has to say instead of anything of substance that challenged what he was reporting.

In the absence of anything to the contrary I'm going to have to go with information from a source who has more insight and contacts than me regardless of whether we're talking sports, science or the human vagina.

 

[maineman209]

The thing is that, just last season, Gronk met or exceeded his career averages by pretty much every statistical measure and was in the Top-10 among wide receivers.

Through the first four games of this season, he was on pace to meet or exceed his 2017 stats. and that was with the Pats outright missing two WRs (there were only three worthy of even being active for the first three games), and effectively missing two RBs most of the time. IOW, Gronk was pretty much the same Gronk - until he hurt his back.

He hasn't been the same since - blocking or receiving. Shocker. Heck, I struggle to pull up my pants after taking a crap when my back is sore. Play elite-level TE? From my perspective, it's kind of superhuman that he's playing at all.

So, no he IS not "the same Gronk" present tense. Saying that he isn't the same Gronk anymore is a slightly different claim. I mean, it may turn out to be true if his current back issue doesn't clear up. But that's also slightly different from the implications that he's "over the hill" or that he's "just not into it anymore" or that "he's still struggling with the Patriot Way" or "he's unhappy about the money."

 

[BradyFTW!]

Gronk didn't look "cooked" in the first part of the season before he injured his back.

OTOH, Allen looks like that when he's 100% healthy.

I think that's part of the issue with Gronk: that you can't assume he'll go 4 games without injuring his back anymore. This is a guy who's had at least 3 major back injuries that we know of, and big football players with back problems pretty much always deal with them for the rest of their careers. This year's back injury was the fourth documented one, and at this point I think he's just crossed into Jason Peters kind of territory where, no matter how good he is when 100% healthy, you know he'll never be even 80% healthy for even half a season so it's a moot point.

Re: today's article, it ended stating that Pats fans should feel concerned about the disconnect, but I'm really not concerned because I don't think there's a ton at stake just because I don't think Gronk is all that valuable anymore. Yeah he's a huge difference-maker in the brief stretches that you can have him healthy, but he's reliably unhealthy. I'm basically assuming that he'll play his last game as a Patriot sometime between yesterday and February, and that's fine. His contract is structured so that they can move on from him with minimal cap hit after this season: they stand to save $10M by cutting him, and based on what he's done over the past couple years I have a hard time seeing him providing $10M worth of production next year, so I think I'd rather have the cap space.

From this point forward in his career, I think the best you can reasonably hope for from him is that he'll be fringe top-10 TE who will miss at least 4 games per season and will be playing at half-strength for at least half of the games he does play. He'll never be worth his cap figure again, and I think that's why Belichick tried to trade him during the offseason in the first place. If the Pats move on from him and allocate his money elsewhere starting in the very near future that'll probably be for the best anyway.

 

[Mack Herron]

The thing is that, just last season, Gronk met or exceeded his career averages by pretty much every statistical measure and was in the Top-10 among wide receivers.

Through the first four games of this season, he was on pace to meet or exceed his 2017 stats. and that was with the Pats outright missing two WRs (there were only three worthy of even being active for the first three games), and effectively missing two RBs most of the time. IOW, Gronk was pretty much the same Gronk - until he hurt his back.

He hasn't been the same since - blocking or receiving. Shocker. Heck, I struggle to pull up my pants after taking a crap when my back is sore. Play elite-level TE? From my perspective, it's kind of superhuman that he's playing at all.

So, no he IS not "the same Gronk" present tense. Saying that he isn't the same Gronk anymore is a slightly different claim. I mean, it may turn out to be true if his current back issue doesn't clear up. But that's also slightly different from the implications that he's "over the hill" or that he's "just not into it anymore" or that "he's still struggling with the Patriot Way" or "he's unhappy about the money."

I tend to think that the rather sudden drop in prformance is related to an acute back problem that is unlikely to be permanent. But he probably could benefit from further rest, which is the reason I will be watching closely Allen's progress this week.

 

[PScottman]

you wouldn't be fluffing up the featherbed for one of your homeboys , now would you PScott?

Et Tu Fluffernutter?

 

[PScottman]

Maybe they have seen him block a punter or kicker on ST or something.

Rumor has it his blocking is much more aligned toward the "wingman" category at the local watering hole.

 

[maineman209]

I think that's part of the issue with Gronk: that you can't assume he'll go 4 games without injuring his back anymore. This is a guy who's had at least 3 major back injuries that we know of, and big football players with back problems pretty much always deal with them for the rest of their careers. This year's back injury was the fourth documented one, and at this point I think he's just crossed into Jason Peters kind of territory where, no matter how good he is when 100% healthy, you know he'll never be even 80% healthy for even half a season so it's a moot point.

Re: today's article, it ended stating that Pats fans should feel concerned about the disconnect, but I'm really not concerned because I don't think there's a ton at stake just because I don't think Gronk is all that valuable anymore. Yeah he's a huge difference-maker in the brief stretches that you can have him healthy, but he's reliably unhealthy. I'm basically assuming that he'll play his last game as a Patriot sometime between yesterday and February, and that's fine. His contract is structured so that they can move on from him with minimal cap hit after this season: they stand to save $10M by cutting him, and based on what he's done over the past couple years I have a hard time seeing him providing $10M worth of production next year, so I think I'd rather have the cap space.

From this point forward in his career, I think the best you can reasonably hope for from him is that he'll be fringe top-10 TE who will miss at least 4 games per season and will be playing at half-strength for at least half of the games he does play. He'll never be worth his cap figure again, and I think that's why Belichick tried to trade him during the offseason in the first place. If the Pats move on from him and allocate his money elsewhere starting in the very near future that'll probably be for the best anyway.

We don't really have any way of knowing the true nature of Gronk's current back issue, but we can at least make an educated guess.

FWIW, it was originally reported by Reiss as "spasms". If true, spasms might indicate something more related to muscle/tendon/ligament stiffness or strain rather than to some sort of vertebral damage. Given that Gronk is still playing, rather than on IR, the former seems far more likely than the latter.

The fact that Gronk has played intermittently since the first report, and his "off-ON-off again" appearance on this past week's injury report, seems to support the hypothesis that it's something chronic - better some days, worse others - but that still doesn't really offer any support for a firm prognosis, positive or negative, for the rest of this season or beyond. It could dog him for the rest of this season and clear up afterward. It could ease-up/become more manageable by the post-season, or even before. Those are equal possibilities given our lack of access to his medical chart.

However, also given the fact that Gronk is still playing a lot, when available at all ...
... Wk-8, 90% of the snaps
-- after missing one week, and prior to a three-week rest, including the BYE
... Wk-12, 99% of the snaps
... Wk-13, 99% of the snaps

- it seems apparent that the Pats coaches feel that he's providing significant value on the field, our "eyeball test" notwithstanding. If he wasn't, he simply wouldn't be out there, much less for entire games. That said, someone suggested that Gronk may not have been used as much the past two games if Allen had been healthy. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis, one that seems likely to be tested as soon as Allen is available to play again.

As to Gronk's cap-cost value ...

Again, it was just one year ago that he was effectively a top-10 wide receiver in terms of production - IMHO, well worth $10M, given how much more top-10 WRs typically cost (and completely leaving out the bonus he provides with his blocking). Through his first six games this season, prior to his back issue, Gronk was pretty much on pace to at least match his receiving production from last season, except for scoring (he just wasn't being targeted in the red zone).

Now, at least a couple people on this board have claimed that Gronk "didn't look like the same player, even at the start of the season". One even claimed that he only put up those stats because he wasn't being covered as heavily as he has been in the past, because "he's not the same player that he once was". From my perspective, production is production. If defenses were allowing Gronk top-10 WR production (or something close to it) by not covering him as heavily, that seems pretty stupid on their part.

As to Gronk's future with the team beyond this season, we simply don't have a factual diagnosis or prognosis regarding his current "back issue". His "history", as far as we know it in detail, is largely irrelevant, since we have no idea if the current issue is medically-related to his previous back problems or not. We don't even know, medically-speaking, how likely his previous back problems are to recur. We can't even make a legitimate "educated guess." He had no back issues in 2017.

IOW, we simply don't know how his health will affect his play the rest of this season, much less next season - our eyeball tests and the profound, definitive conclusions of the geniuses in the media notwithstanding. [SIDEBAR: How is it even possible for Mehta to reach a conclusion based on his own "eyeball test" when his head is so far up his ass? That's some sort of physiological miracle, right there. Maybe he uses his navel as a peephole?]

We also don't know how the Pats value Gronk now (in cap terms), much less how they will four months from now. I personally never saw any direct quotes from BB, Caserio, Gronk, or from a Lions decision-maker, to confirm the story about an aborted trade last spring. Even if that story is all true, we don't really know why the Pats were trying to trade him, and we don't really know that the Pats are still thinking that way now.

We also don't know what's actually going on in Gronk's head about all of this right now, or how his "feelings" may change over the course of the rest of this season and beyond. At the moment, he may feel that he's had enough pain and should retire at the end of the season. Alternatively, he may still be eager to play and enjoying it, and may feel the same way next spring. But he may also change his mind over the summer and retire at the start of 2019 Camp, like Nink did in 2017. All equal possibilities, because we don't know.

I'm as eager to know what's going to happen as anyone else, but I refuse to make assumptions based on things I don't know for a fact. So, no, I can't assume that Gronk will go four games without injuring his back (or another body part), but I also can't assume that he won't go four games, or even an entire season. He only missed one game all of last season due to injury, that absence being due to a minor knee injury that Gronk himself felt he could have played on if it hadn't been a Sunday-Thursday short week.

 

[DarrylS]

IMO my eyeball tells me that Gronk's future is coming to an end much sooner than anticipated... queue the "Hell's Bells"...

The key words to describe him was his "catch radius" that does not seem to be as much of a factor now, did anyone with a sore back try to extend their arms without any pain????

 

[maineman209]

Not to interrupt this wonderful "Days of Our Gronk" soap opera fan thread ...

On the apparently tangential topic of the Vikes game, Oliver Thomas tweeted this interesting nugget ...



So, of Harmon's 13 total INTs, 11 have now been 4th-Q game-closers ... 4 against the 'Fins, 3 against the Steelers, 2 against the Texans, and one each against the Ravens and (now) Vikes.

 

[Uptown]

That Bye-week is crucial regardless, but even more so this year to give Gronk that extra rest.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not to interrupt this wonderful "Days of Our Gronk" soap opera fan thread ...

On the apparently tangential topic of the Vikes game, Oliver Thomas tweeted this interesting nugget ...



So, of Harmon's 13 total INTs, 11 have now been 4th-Q game-closers ... 4 against the 'Fins, 3 against the Steelers, 2 against the Texans, and one each against the Ravens and (now) Vikes.

Well if Kimbrel leaves in FA....

 

[luuked]

Not to interrupt this wonderful "Days of Our Gronk" soap opera fan thread ...

On the apparently tangential topic of the Vikes game, Oliver Thomas tweeted this interesting nugget ...



So, of Harmon's 13 total INTs, 11 have now been 4th-Q game-closers ... 4 against the 'Fins, 3 against the Steelers, 2 against the Texans, and one each against the Ravens and (now) Vikes.

Goes to show that DMac often plays in different positions than deep safety in crunch time. Maybe another indicator how the staff loves keeping the more complex and exotic disguises until we are in the final stretch of a game and starts out often vanilla (to figure out what opponent's gameplan is).

Or maybe it is a coincidence.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Locker Room Celebration Following the Win Over the Vikings

A shocking development: BB actually smiles in this one.

 

[n6249c]

Never ceases to amaze me the willingness to go beserk over other team's players, no matter what they've accomplshed, and yet the constant ,obstinate "all our players suck" mantra rolls out every single day, like early morning in a Tibetan monastery....Patriots bad...everything bad...secondary bad..linebackers bad...D line bad...O line bad...Brady looks wrong...running backs bad...Gronk is bad...Edelman bad...Belichick bad drafter...game plans bad...it's all bad bad bad ...ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

^^^^truth. Meanwhile the team lays a 24-10 beat down on a playoff contender with a good defense and there are many calls for the OC to be fired.