If you could choose: 7-3 with Sunday's injuries? Or 6-4 with good health?

[JackBauer]

Perhaps because there are folks strongly on both sides of the question.

Shall we call you the 14 percenters?

 

[PATSNUTme]

I just wanted to see who the 6 were who have voted for 6-4.

BB: "We just lost to the friggin Colts on our home field with a rookie QB".
TFB: " yes, but look at the bright side - we still have our health"
BB: "If you weren't the GOAT, I'd cut your ass for saying that".

 

[mgteich]

Really?

Would you rather be 7-3 with Brady out for the season or 6-4 with Brady healthy?

Would you rather be 7-3 with Gronkowski out until the playoffs (and rusty then) and Jones out indefinitely, or would you rather be 6-4 with both healthy?
=============================================
The reality is that we will win our division and are unlikely to get a bye. One CRITICAL factor for playoff success will be health, not a couple of more wins.

If we don't have a bye (and that is of questionable value), I don't care at all whether we are 12-4 or 10-6, as long as we win the division. It is much, much more important to have as many key players healthy as possible.

I would trade the lives of several innocent children for an additional win.

I would fill an empty ocean with the blood of nuns if it meant the New England Patriots would win another game.

I would black out the sun and set fire to the night sky for another notch in the win column.

Players are merely grist for the mill to sate my unending hunger for more. MORE. MORE WINS.

 

[BradyManny]

7-3. Injuries are a part of football as long as it isn't TB.

Exactly.

And none of these injuries project into the playoffs, so far - so frankly, we're lucky.

We're going to win the AFCE barring something catastrophic. Whether we get the bye or not - well, that will involve some luck and stuff we can't control.

But if we're healthy in January, who cares if we miss out on the bye?

We'll be the best team in the AFC if these guys return to health and if Brady is still healthy and playing at this level. Winning four games instead of three would be a minor point at that juncture.

 

[JoeSixPat]

How is this even a question?

Hypothetically, let's say I told you that you could have one guaranteed win, but would have to play without Gronkowski for the final 6 games of the season, and face the possibility that he might not be available or fully healthy for the playoffs.

Would you take the one guaranteed win, or a loss with a healthy Gronkowski for the final 6 games and the playoffs?

If the question of having Gronkowski for critical games, including the playoffs, is irrelevant, I apologize.

 

[mgteich]

And you might add Jones to the equation.

BTW, have we all simply forgotten how Gronkowski's injuries affected our SB play last year? He was back; he played.

Hypothetically, let's say I told you that you could have one guaranteed win, but would have to play without Gronkowski for the final 6 games of the season, and face the possibility that he might not be available or fully healthy for the playoffs.

Would you take the one guaranteed win, or a loss with a healthy Gronkowski for the final 6 games and the playoffs?

If the question of having Gronkowski for critical games, including the playoffs, is irrelevant, I apologize.

 

[mgteich]

Sure!

What should we call those who prefer a repeat of last year's Gronkowksi health situation?

Shall we call you the 14 percenters?

 

[JackBauer]

Hypothetically, let's say I told you that you could have one guaranteed win, but would have to play without Gronkowski for the final 6 games of the season, and face the possibility that he might not be available or fully healthy for the playoffs.

Would you take the one guaranteed win, or a loss with a healthy Gronkowski for the final 6 games and the playoffs?

If the question of having Gronkowski for critical games, including the playoffs, is irrelevant, I apologize.

Given the conditions you've described are highly unlikely to occur, I would first dispute the parameters of your hypothetical.

I would then say that if this team can't survive the loss of Gronkowski for a few weeks, they're probably not going anywhere fast anyway. You take the win and it's not even close.

 

[JackBauer]

Sure!

What should we call those who prefer a repeat of last year's Gronkowksi health situation?

I guess, being charitable, ill-considered would have to suffice, considering the situations are in no way comparable.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure!

What should we call those who prefer a repeat of last year's Gronkowksi health situation?

When did game 11 become the same as as the Super Bowl?

 

[PatriotSeven]

If all it does is mess with the seeding or homefield advantage, well then the numbers say that in the past 7 years only 1 #1 seed has won the Superbowl. We have had two #6 seeds, a #5, a #4, a #3, and a #2 win one.

So I say it depends on the player. Homefield advantage in the playoffs is not going to give you a production increase of 2TD & 100+ yard receiving day like Gronk had yesterday to make up for his loss. Hope he is back for the playoffs.


If Brady was injured? Forget about it.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

How is this even a question?

I think this is a trick question, sort of like a $200 question on Jeopardy that you really can't believe is so easy...

"Alex, could it be a question because there's a '?' at the end of the sentence instead of a '.' ?"

I mean, you gotta admit, that does explain it.

 

[ausbacker]

Why would you choose an inferior record? That makes no sense to me.

 

[PatriotSeven]

Why would you choose an inferior record? That makes no sense to me.

Because I saw what our offense looked like with Gronk playing on a boot in the Superbowl a few months ago?

 

[JoeSixPat]

Why would you choose an inferior record? That makes no sense to me.

Correct. Unless the hypothesis is that the team would do better without Gronkowski than with him, the only logical option would be to prefer him active and healthy for the home stretch of the season, rather than chance an inferior record and one win against the Colts.

Obviously they are significantly weaker without Gronk, or with an injured Gronk. We need look no further than last year's Super Bowl to show that.

One game against the Colts could mean next to nothing come the playoffs (and hopefully Gronkowski and Jones are at full strength by then, but there's no guarantee of that either.

 

[ausbacker]

Because I saw what our offense looked like with Gronk playing on a boot in the Superbowl a few months ago?

With the greatest respect, only an idiot would choose to lose over winning, no matter what the cost.

Gronk is important. There can be no doubt about that. The Patriots will make the appropriate adjustment and continue to win. I'll take the W.

 

[Froob]

Honestly, pats have been healthier than they've been in years. Only season ending injury is really Dane Fletcher. These guys will be back I'm not worried.

 

[Deus Irae]

Because I saw what our offense looked like with Gronk playing on a boot in the Superbowl a few months ago?

Super Bowl's in 4-6 weeks?

 

[PromisedLand]

Hell-OH???! You PLAY to WIN the game!!!!!!!

 

[PatriotSeven]

With the greatest respect, only an idiot would choose to lose over winning, no matter what the cost.

Gronk is important. There can be no doubt about that. The Patriots will make the appropriate adjustment and continue to win. I'll take the W.

With all due respect, only an idiot would choose a better regular season record at the cost of a playoff or Superbowl loss.

We're not in it for the regular season records as long as we get in the playoffs. And considering higher seeding has not proven to offer any kind of correlation to SB wins over the past decade, there's really little reason to want to go into the playoffs or Superbowl with an injury to one of your top offensive weapons.

When the NFL decides to explain to me and the rest of us why the #1 and #2 seed, and their 1 game advantage, has stopped working out statistically as it should, and the #1 seed is a 80% favorite to LOSE the big game, then I might give a crap.

But as it stands I stand by my statement. I'll take a 100% fully healthy roster and a lower seed than the #1 or #2 seed with a hobbled Gronk going into the big game. Unfortunately I don't get to make that choice and neither does anyone else. It's all hypothetical, not reality.