Gronkowski

[mgteich]

Not sure the league would look kindly on refusing to play a non injured player.

???
There are healthy scratches in almost every NFL game. The NFL doesn't object to sitting almost every starter at the end of the season. I don't think that they would oppose sitting any player because the team judged that he needn't the rest, so that he might perform better later in the season.

 

[Ring 6]

He says, about a socialist league.

You might want to read up on what socialism is.

 

[Ring 6]

90% of the other coaches would be begging Gronk to play all season out of desperation. We’re blessed in that it’s easy to take the regular season for granted. For other teams, an extra loss or two means missing the playoffs and everybody getting fired.

We were 11-5. In most seasons an extra loss or 2 may have resulted in missing the playoffs.

 

[varjao]

It doesn't work that way, he is a team leader and if we draft a TE he does have a extra role to teach the kid(s).

Partial season I don't buy it, but limiting Gronk, I think it's in the best interest of both sides.

 

[Ring 6]

This is a problem I have with BB. He can be too stubborn and stuck in his ways sometimes.

Any coach or fan would be more than happy to say good bye to Gronk until December and then get him up to speed for the playoff run.

If BB isn't willing to do that out of some silly principle then that is detrimental to the team. Why insist on Gronk being there all 19 games if you know he can't make it to the really important ones at the end?

Bb is too stubborn to be the only coach ever to give up on the regular season and tell football players to not play until December?

Gronk has played every playoff game in 4 of the last 5 seasons, so I’m not sure how you KNOW he can’t make it to the end if the season.

 

[luuked]

???
There are healthy scratches in almost every NFL game. The NFL doesn't object to sitting almost every starter at the end of the season. I don't think that they would oppose sitting any player because the team judged that he needn't the rest, so that he might perform better later in the season.

In your scenario if we are not putting him through a camp anyway then he'd start the season on PUP and none of the inactivity would be an issue anyhow.

I just don't see it happening. Football players play football. He can retire or play. Yes the staff might give him a couple veteran days off and adjusts the way they are using him a bit but I doubt they'd just sit a healthy player just to preserve him at a point when every game matters.

And it is not like you'd save a lot of money which seems to be your priority here anyhow. Because they would need a replacement TE that can do at least some of the stuff Gronk does in addition to whatever paycut Gronk would take for sitting out half of the season.

 

[mgteich]

No one knows.

There are 2 questions before the house.

1) Is Gronk worth having on the roster for $9.5M?

2) If Gronk is on the roster, should his reps be severely limited until December.
======
For me, the answers are "Maybe" and "No".

Bb is too stubborn to be the only coach ever to give up on the regular season and tell football players to not play until December?

Gronk has played every playoff game in 4 of the last 5 seasons, so I’m not sure how you KNOW he can’t make it to the end if the season.

 

[Ring 6]

In your scenario if we are not putting him through a camp anyway then he'd start the season on PUP and none of the inactivity would be an issue anyhow.

I just don't see it happening. Football players play football. He can retire or play. Yes the staff might give him a couple veteran days off and adjusts the way they are using him a bit but I doubt they'd just sit a healthy player just to preserve him at a point when every game matters.

And it is not like you'd save a lot of money which seems to be your priority here anyhow. Because they would need a replacement TE that can do at least some of the stuff Gronk does in addition to whatever paycut Gronk would take for sitting out half of the season.

One of my biggest frustrations with this board is people come up with half-baked idiotic ideas like having a healthy football who is vital to your team sit out because of the fear of injury, and then they turn into being discussed as if they are the mainstream idea and not going it is nuts.

Someone just called bb stubborn for not being the only coach in the history if the league to do this.

 

[Ring 6]

No one knows.

There are 2 questions before the house.

1) Is Gronk worth having on the roster for $9.5M?

Absolutely. 100%. Without question.

2) If Gronk is on the roster, should his reps be severely limited until December.
======
For me, the answers are "Maybe" and "No".

No

 

[Chevrolet]

How about if he retired, then came out of retirement in December and pay him only for half a season.

 

[luuked]

One of my biggest frustrations with this board is people come up with half-baked idiotic ideas like having a healthy football who is vital to your team sit out because of the fear of injury, and then they turn into being discussed as if they are the mainstream idea and not going it is nuts.

Someone just called bb stubborn for not being the only coach in the history if the league to do this.

Personally I just don't get the panic over the contracts which seems to be driving a lot of this conversation. We already know Brady will sign an extension at some point as Balestrieri heard something accidentally about that. Ian confirmed that part.

We have enough flexibility to shift around resources to easily keep those 3 players (Gronk, DMac and HT) at their current salary level. There is no need for open heart surgery on the team to make space.

And as many have said.. I'd rather be in our situation where we have a roster with a lot of proven fits than a blank canvas with 100m in cap space.

 

[mgteich]

How about if he retired, then came out of retirement in December and pay him only for half a season.

that was what I suggested

 

[luuked]

How about if he retired, then came out of retirement in December and pay him only for half a season.

Why would any of the two sides agree to that ? This makes zero sense.

 

[Steve102]

So, the suggestion is to pay Gronk $9.5M for his play in Dec, Jan and Feb?

No. But, according that article, Bavaro played a 16 game schedule with a reduced workload during the week.

 

[mgteich]

Why would any of the two sides agree to that ? This makes zero sense.

Then let's do this in stages. Maybe it will make more sense.

1) Gronk has been considering retirement.

2) Gronk decides to retire.

3) In November, Gronk asks Belichick whether he would like him to un-retire in December.

4) Belichick agrees and Gronk comes back.
========
This isn't about an agreement for Gronk to come back. It is about a decision for Gronkoswki to retire, with the possibility that, just maybe, he might come back. The retirement decision is Gronk's to make.

 

[RayClay]

You might want to read up on what socialism is.

Teams can't make their own TV deals, Jacksonville makes much more than they would otherwise.

Even a large portion of gate receipts are redistributed to teams like Jacksonville.

Popular teams do not keep the profits from merchandise, it is distributed to less popular teams.

The league decides what brands of shoes players can wear.

 

[RayClay]

???
There are healthy scratches in almost every NFL game. The NFL doesn't object to sitting almost every starter at the end of the season. I don't think that they would oppose sitting any player because the team judged that he needn't the rest, so that he might perform better later in the season.

You're proposing a very popular player being a healthy scratch for 16 games. Of course they rest him occasionaly. I'm sure they will.

 

[ChessToCheckers]

IIRC: BB essentially saved Antoine Smith for Nov-Feb. It's a marathon not a sprint. I suspect BB knows what he's doing . I wouldn't be surprised to not see much of Gronk early on.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Any coach or fan would be more than happy to say good bye to Gronk until December and then get him up to speed for the playoff run.

Who the hell gives a shyte about what fans think. They don't and don't know how to run football teams.

As for coaches, I very much doubt "any coach" would be happy to not play an uninjured Gronk until December.

And no team is going to pay Gronk what he wants to be paid to only get 3 games plus postseason (if you even make the postseason) out of him.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Then let's do this in stages. Maybe it will make more sense.

1) Gronk has been considering retirement.

2) Gronk decides to retire.

3) In November, Gronk asks Belichick whether he would like him to un-retire in December.

4) Belichick agrees and Gronk comes back.
========
This isn't about an agreement for Gronk to come back. It is about a decision for Gronkoswki to retire, with the possibility that, just maybe, he might come back. The retirement decision is Gronk's to make.

5) The NFL (and possibly the NFLPA as well) hammer NE for playing games with a sham retirement. Especially if during "retirement" Gronk is spotted doing "keeping in football shape" stuff.