Gronk's whining about "no-fun Patriots" is wearing thin

[jimnance]

Did you actually just type this earlier?

No I have the latest Samsung Galaxy. It types everything automatically. I just have to think it

 

[Bruins29]

No I have the latest Samsung Galaxy. It types everything automatically. I just have to think it

I gotta get one of those. Let me know where.

So my next question - Is there some reason that Gronk is responsible for all 6 superbowls that I (or we) are not privy to?

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

I honestly don't really like Gronk and I thought his hit on that bills player was very classless. Not calling him dirty but he is pretty annoying.

 

[jimnance]

I gotta get one of those. Let me know where.

So my next question - Is there some reason that Gronk is responsible for all 6 superbowls that I (or we) are not privy to?

No,who said he was?

 

[jimnance]

Gronk was good but not that good! He was in middle school for the first 3 Super Bowls and don't forget an injury caused him to miss the 28-3 comeback game.

Reread the post. Your comprehension is lacking

 

[bresna]

Reread the post. Your comprehension is lacking

My reading comprehension is fine. You said, "We don't win 6 SBs w/o him". That means you are saying that wouldn't have won 6 Super Bowls without him. That's literally what you said.

If you had said "We don't win 2 SBs w/o him", we wouldn't be having this conversation and FWIW, I'd be in agreement with you,

 

[Bruins29]

No,who said he was?

Well.....you did.

 

[jimnance]

Well.....you did.

No I didn't. I said we wouldnt have won 6 SBs w/o him. How many would we have won? Obviously 3 for sure,01,03,04 duh.
Do we win any of the next 3 w/o him? Maybe not. He didn't play vs.Atlanta but if he wasn't on the team that whole season do we even get to the SB? We don't win the 2nd Rams SB w/o him. Not just the catch but his blocking was a major reason Sony ran well.
So,like I said ,Pats dont win 6 SBs w/o him. They get 3. Maybe no more

 

[jimnance]

My reading comprehension is fine. You said, "We don't win 6 SBs w/o him". That means you are saying that wouldn't have won 6 Super Bowls without him. That's literally what you said.

If you had said "We don't win 2 SBs w/o him", we wouldn't be having this conversation and FWIW, I'd be in agreement

Dude, this is stupid arguing. We're obviously in agreement. You're just reading it wrong. Funny how only 2 guys on the entire board couldn't comprehend.
C'mon,man

 

[TheRainMaker]

No I didn't. I said we wouldnt have won 6 SBs w/o him. How many would we have won? Obviously 3 for sure,01,03,04 duh.
Do we win any of the next 3 w/o him? Maybe not. He didn't play vs.Atlanta but if he wasn't on the team that whole season do we even get to the SB? We don't win the 2nd Rams SB w/o him. Not just the catch but his blocking was a major reason Sony ran well.
So,like I said ,Pats dont win 6 SBs w/o him. They get 3. Maybe no more

Gronk was the most important player in the second dynasty run and it's not even close. They are not in the AFCCG 7 years straight without him.

 

[Bruins29]

No I didn't. I said we wouldnt have won 6 SBs w/o him. How many would we have won? Obviously 3 for sure,01,03,04 duh.
Do we win any of the next 3 w/o him? Maybe not. He didn't play vs.Atlanta but if he wasn't on the team that whole season do we even get to the SB? We don't win the 2nd Rams SB w/o him. Not just the catch but his blocking was a major reason Sony ran well.
So,like I said ,Pats dont win 6 SBs w/o him. They get 3. Maybe no more

I took it the wrong way but could not figure out what I was missing. Now I see

 

[jimnance]

I took it the wrong way but could not figure out what I was missing. Now I see

Maybe I could spelled it out a little clearer.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Gronk was the most important player in the second dynasty run and it's not even close. They are not in the AFCCG 7 years straight without him.

And if he wasn't hurt for the second Giants game we probably would have won that one too.

 

[zipster9]

He should just shut up.

 

[crawhammer]

No I didn't. I said we wouldnt have won 6 SBs w/o him. How many would we have won? Obviously 3 for sure,01,03,04 duh.
Do we win any of the next 3 w/o him? Maybe not. He didn't play vs.Atlanta but if he wasn't on the team that whole season do we even get to the SB? We don't win the 2nd Rams SB w/o him. Not just the catch but his blocking was a major reason Sony ran well.
So,like I said ,Pats dont win 6 SBs w/o him. They get 3. Maybe no more

Gronk is great but the team couldn't have done any better without him in 2016. They were 11-0 without him including the greatest comeback in NFL history. Martellus Bennett did a nice job making up for Gronk's absence. Plus Brady was unstoppable that season.

Gronk made significant contributions in all of his Super Bowl appearances except for the first one when he noticeably hobbled. He was necessary for the SB 49 and SB 53 wins.

 

[reflexblue]

He was miserable.

My thoughts exactly, he didnt look very depressed to me.

 

[venecol]

He should just shut up.

Make him but send us the video of how it went.

 

[Patsfan1958]

Gronk is a walking public service announcement for better helmets.

 

[BUSTAMOVE]

He always looked like he was having fun on those duck boats.

I will always have good memories for he was a fun guy and great player. I soured on him the year we beat Atlanta in the SB and he only played 8 games all year. None in the playoffs.
But that parade was all about him. I thought he should have toned it down and allowed the players that won it have their glory. I’m old school. Just my take

 

[fourhour]

NY Post hack had to get in on it.

Rob Gronkowski details ‘super depression’ from playing for Patriots

Rob Gronkowski recalls feeling depressed while playing for the Patriots even when the team won.

nypost.com