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

[JoeSixPat]

Factor in whatever you want... AFC seeding and the potential for a bye, helped greatly by the win...

Or an eye on the Division with the Jets now 4-6, which would be 2 games behind going into a Thanksgiving Day matchup had the team lost - and the potential to wind up 6-5 with the Jets 5-6 if by some chance they also beat the Patriots on Turkey Day

Of course we'd all prefer the win and good health - that goes without saying - both Gronk and Jones are important cogs in the a smooth running team.

Just to be clear I'm not using this to launch into a "What the hell was he doing out there late in the game?" rant - players play and you can't sit everyone late in a game.

I'm just wondering what the pulse of PatsFan nation is as so many seem to caught up in vying for the bye each year.

 

[smg93]

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

 

[CityOfChampions]

7-3 with injuries. There's a chance that we can catch up to the Ravens and Texans record and get a first round bye to heal a bit.

 

[Haley]

7-3

Gronk will be back and ready to go for the playoffs. With 7-3 we aren't likely to lose the division, so losing him for a month really isn't that huge of a problem.

 

[pazrul72]

Short of Tom Brady going down week 1 with a season ending injury you always take the win. Injuries are part of the game and the good teams learn to overcome them. Yeah it sucks that GRONK is hurt but if the Patriots are who we think they are the rest of the team will compensate and overcome.

 

[PatsDeb]

You have to go with the better record. Injuries are always a factor and you have to figure out a way to win while incorporating them.

 

[JoeSixPat]

7-3

Gronk will be back and ready to go for the playoffs. With 7-3 we aren't likely to lose the division, so losing him for a month really isn't that huge of a problem.

I think you're right - at least I hope you're right. And although the arm isn't insignificant in ball security - especially when you're dragging three defenders with you into the endzone - I'm glad it's not an ankle or something that more seriously limits him as it did in the Super Bowl.

Of course, losing him for the remainder of the regular season could also put a crimp on our ability to win games down the stretch as well - last year's Super Bowl is a reminder of how not having Gronk at full health can limit the offense.

That's my bottom line. Whether we have a bye, play at home, or on the road, I have absolutely no doubt that, if the team is fully healthy come the playoffs, no team can stop the Patriots, whether they're the #1 seed or #6 seed.

As I don't think this one game against the Colts will make or break whether they make the playoffs (but could effect seeding) I'd opt to see Gronk (and Jones) healthy.

No doubt wins are always good. For arguments sake let's conservatively assume (even with a healthy Gronk) losses to Houston and the 49ers and wins against Miami, the Jets and the Jags. That'd leave us at 10-6 even with a loss to the Colts - and while that might seem a bit too close for comfort, under that scenario there'd be no chance of any other AFC East team catching up with us.

Good health remains my #1 priority going into the playoffs - not seeding.

Not having Gronk for the remainder of the season makes wins against Houston and San Fran a much taller order - and having him would be preferable even against the Jets and Fins. But to get to 10 wins which would likely clinch the Division, at this point I'd say going .500 from hereon out would be enough to get the job done just to make the playoffs.

 

[chasa]

Ill take giving gronk 4 weeks for his leg, hip to heal why his arm gets put back together.

We got some swagger back with that win.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

What if we lost at home to a rookie for the second time this year? No injuries SUNDAY, yet Gronk or someone wakes up in pain, goes to the doctor and needs surgery MONDAY?

Or what if the big injury happens on thursday with a possibility of being 6-5? Either way you can't avoid it, a win is better than a loss no matter what.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I think you're right - at least I hope you're right. And although the arm isn't insignificant in ball security - especially when you're dragging three defenders with you into the endzone - I'm glad it's not an ankle or something that more seriously limits him as it did in the Super Bowl.

Of course, losing him for the remainder of the regular season could also put a crimp on our ability to win games down the stretch as well - last year's Super Bowl is a reminder of how not having Gronk at full health can limit the offense.

That's my bottom line. Whether we have a bye, play at home, or on the road, I have absolutely no doubt that, if the team is fully healthy come the playoffs, no team can stop the Patriots, whether they're the #1 seed or #6 seed.

As I don't think this one game against the Colts will make or break whether they make the playoffs (but could effect seeding) I'd opt to see Gronk (and Jones) healthy.

No doubt wins are always good. For arguments sake let's conservatively assume (even with a healthy Gronk) losses to Houston and the 49ers and wins against Miami, the Jets and the Jags. That'd leave us at 10-6 even with a loss to the Colts - and while that might seem a bit too close for comfort, under that scenario there'd be no chance of any other AFC East team catching up with us.

Good health remains my #1 priority going into the playoffs - not seeding.

Not having Gronk for the remainder of the season makes wins against Houston and San Fran a much taller order - and having him would be preferable even against the Jets and Fins. But to get to 10 wins which would likely clinch the Division, at this point I'd say going .500 from hereon out would be enough to get the job done just to make the playoffs.

I disagree, I bet we score 34+ easily on Thur, without Gronk because we execute. The SB we couldn't block the rush, run the ball, catch the ball, or play any D down the stretch. Now the running and defending seem reasonable but the blocking and catching was way off the average.

Gronk or no Gronk if we play like **** (CLE in 10, NYJ in 10, NYG in 11, PIT in 11, ARI in 12, SEA in 12 etc.) we deserve to lose. I only think it will limit the offense if Mankins gets exposed and Welker/Hernandez is dropping passes like a bum.

 

[Kontradiction]

Obviously you take 7-3 with the injuries. We built up all that depth at TE in the offseason for a reason.

 

[JoeSixPat]

What if we lost at home to a rookie for the second time this year? No injuries SUNDAY, yet Gronk or someone wakes up in pain, goes to the doctor and needs surgery MONDAY?

Or what if the big injury happens on thursday with a possibility of being 6-5? Either way you can't avoid it, a win is better than a loss no matter what.

I didn't really think "Losing on Sunday and Losing Gronk to Injury on Monday" was going to be a popular selection.

Nor did I think anyone would opt to select "lose Gronk to Injury on Thursday" as a preference.

Any of those - or any other scenario, was irrelevant to the question I was going for. The question was really to see how people feel about injuries to key players vs. seeding for the playoffs.

In my mind good health is much more important than seeding, but I understand why many prioritize seeding over good health.

 

[Ring 6]

What if we lost at home to a rookie for the second time this year? No injuries SUNDAY, yet Gronk or someone wakes up in pain, goes to the doctor and needs surgery MONDAY?

Or what if the big injury happens on thursday with a possibility of being 6-5? Either way you can't avoid it, a win is better than a loss no matter what.

What rookie did we lose at home to?

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I didn't really think "Losing on Sunday and Losing Gronk to Injury on Monday" was going to be a popular selection.

Nor did I think anyone would opt to select "lose Gronk to Injury on Thursday" as a preference.

Any of those - or any other scenario, was irrelevant to the question I was going for. The question was really to see how people feel about injuries to key players vs. seeding for the playoffs.

In my mind good health is much more important than seeding, but I understand why many prioritize seeding over good health.

Its really relevant in showing how silly this thread is.

If we lose and stay healthy, then lose Gronk and the game to the Jets we are 6-5 without our best receiver. So you always take the win. Nobody on the schedule is winning because Gronk is out, if we don't piss ourselves we can win these next 9 games and parade downtown. Brady went to 4 SBs with a 3-1 record with weak TEs at most times, relax a bit we almost scored 60 dude.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

What rookie did we lose at home to?

The question mark was to state I was unsure, we probably didn't, its the least important part of my post Andy, I am not insulting the team as you always feel so lets not go at it this time.

 

[Kontradiction]

What rookie did we lose at home to?

I think he meant to phrase the question like this: "What if we lost to a rookie for the second time this year? This time at home."

 

[JoeSixPat]

Its really relevant in showing how silly this thread is.

If we lose and stay healthy, then lose Gronk and the game to the Jets we are 6-5 without our best receiver. So you always take the win. Nobody on the schedule is winning because Gronk is out, if we don't piss ourselves we can win these next 9 games and parade downtown. Brady went to 4 SBs with a 3-1 record with weak TEs at most times, relax a bit we almost scored 60 dude.

I can amend the poll to give folks the option of selecting "win, but lose Gronk to a future injury" if need be. Thankfully his surgery sounds like it went well, and there's currently no reason to believe he won't be available for the playoffs - hopefully fully healthy. But one never knows and I for one prefer not to gamble on such matters.

As we saw in the Super Bowl (where we did not score nearly 60 points) Gronk's impact on the game is significant - and even his presence on the field opens up plays for other guys. That should go without saying - but apparently, for some it does need to be said.

You can win a battle but lose the war. Winning, but losing Brady to injury for the remainder of the regular season would fall into that category. Gronkowski doesn't rise to that level, but he's pretty darn important - and there's a reason why he was just made the highest paid TE in football.

Despite the fact that, yes, we've added backups at TE, comparing backup TEs to Gronkowski and Hernandez is obviously laughable.

 

[JackBauer]

How is this even a question?

 

[mgteich]

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

How is this even a question?

 

[fnordcircle]

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.