How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gronk?

[Observer]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

I abstain because Gronk being healthy in a superbowl is a logical impossibility.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

Somewhere between 0 and 3, with 1 being the most likely answer, IMO. I think they'd have beaten the Giants and Ravens, but gotten steamrolled by the 49ers.

They might have lost, but I don't think they would have gotten steamrolled. A huge part of the Pats deficit in the regular season contest was the fact that they were turning the ball over in the first half like it was going out of style. Once the turnovers stopped, they were moving the ball and scoring even without Gronk. That said, you're probably assuming that Talib would have still gotten injured in the championship game and would have been either injured or out for the Super Bowl. So it is debatable.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: How many more rings would Brady have if Gronkowski was healthy in the past 3 year

I agree; I read so many posts about the Patriots needing to add weapons for Brady and it is as if Gronkowski is an afterthought.

Picture this:

• Denver without D. Thomas
• Detroit without Johnson Jr.
• Cincinnati without Green
• Minnesota without Peterson
• Seattle without Lynch
• Kanas City without Charles
• Philadelphia without McCoy

Heck we saw Atlanta without Julio Jones and that was not pretty… People don’t realize that Gronkowski is in a class with Peterson and Johnson Jr. only of players who completely change the landscape of an offense. I can tell you if roles were reversed last week and we had Gronk and Denver was without D. Thomas we would be in the SB right now.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Pats needed and still need to add weapons for Brady. Gronk, Amendola, Edelman (FA), and Vereen all have injury histories. Dobson, Boyce, and Thompkins all missed time this season with various nicks and dings. Knowing that, they have to still make moves on the offensive side of the ball if for only a few reasons...

1. More depth in the likely event that weapons in the passing and/or running game get injured again.

2. More competition for the second year guys on the squad.

3. Insurance against losing UFA's.

Then, if the second year guys do make a leap then the offense is even better off.

 

[Froob]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

Why isn't zero an option?

Are you even a pats fan?

 

[patriot1136]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

I absolutely love this thread, I think about this stuff all the time.
I say we would have definitely won 1 and may have won 2.
The 2011 Super Bowl against the Giants would have been a win for sure. As for the AFCCG against the Ravens, we probably would have won and I think we could have beat SF in the Super Bowl too. This year, we would have needed Gronk as well as either Talib, Mayo, or Wilfork to beat the Broncos. Hard to say how we would do against Seattle.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

Zero, because the minute something bad happens they mentally can't fight through it, which is of course a complete 360 from the regular season.

This team isn't just having an off day anymore like in 06 or 07, they are consistently coming up short, and its going on 10 years now.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Re: How many SBs would the Patriots have won in the past 3 seasons with a healthy Gro

Pss.. we should've won all of them, had he been healthy.