Is it possible the team improves without Gronk?

[Huckleberry1]

There's an obvious difference between being more talented and playing better. They are clearly a more talented team with Gronk than without him but they can definitely play better as a team than they have played to this point this season with him. Getting Lewis back makes their run game and passing game out of the backfield significantly better as he brings a Darren Sproles dimension to their backfield, but Lewis is a better runner. Their OL has been getting better over the course of the season and I still think their best games are ahead of them. And their receiving corps is really versatile and really good. Even with Gronk this offense is outstanding but defense is where the real improvement can happen. They can't improve the talent but Belichick won a Super Bowl with a WR / Kick Returner playing defensive back so they can certainly get this defense to peek for the playoff run. So ultimately the Patriots can be a better team than they were with Gronk, they just won't be as talented.

Should be really interesting, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[patfanken]

You don't lose the most impactful non-QB player in the game, and become "better". That is a ridiculous concept. However,that being said, to think that the Pats can't win it all WITHOUT him, is equally ridiculous.

Tom Brady won 3 superbowls with a lot less offensive talent that he currently has. I think the offense will be different without Gronk, but it certainly can be productive enought to win a superbowl.

I look forward to those in the media and talk shows who will predict doom for the Pats chances without Gronk. I LOVED it when the Pats were underdogs. It's been a long time since we've been one. Being the best on paper doesn't always work out as we've so painfully found out in 2007. To win a superbowl, you have to have great players, but you also have luck, health, and some good calls and bounces, in order to hoist the Lombardi. There is no reason this team cannot be the one. They are STILL good enough.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

NO

 

[FCB02062]

Folks saying the Pats r LOADED on offense without Gronkowski need to pump the breaks a bit here... The offense looked like schitt without him last Sunday, settling for field goals constantly until the last 6 minutes of the game...

 

[PatriotsPimp136]

Folks saying the Pats r LOADED on offense without Gronkowski need to pump the breaks a bit here... The offense looked like schitt without him last Sunday, settling for field goals constantly until the last 6 minutes of the game...

It will be a work in progress. I said the defense will have to step up. They will be on the field alot

 

[RhodyPatriot]

You don't lose the most impactful non-QB player in the game, and become "better". That is a ridiculous concept.

Disagree!! When "the most impactful non-QB player in the game" has the offense built around him annually and seemingly annually he cannot answer the bell in the playoffs in good health and is usually compromised to the point where his effectiveness has been diminished AND THE OTHER TEAM KNOWS IT that greatly hinders the offense that has been built around "the most impactful non-QB in the game".
Losing that player, who can rarely be counted on in crunch time, with 5 games left in the regular season is a blessing in disguise because it allows the offense the time to game plan without Mr. Unreliable and that is a very good thing.
Don't ask how many championships have been won with Gronk on this team, ask how many have been lost because they built their entire offense around someone so fragile.

 

[brdmaverick]

I don't disagree but if we had Gronk in there as well this would create even more space for other options or leave Marty/Gronk single covered. Now I am not saying we are dead in the water because we still have one of the better offenses in the league. Just don't see any angle where you could think we could be better without him if everything else is the same.

I agree 100%. Gronk is a special talent and arguably the best non QB, offensive weapon in the league. We as fans should be content convincing ourselves that we are still a good team without him (we are) but it's ridiculous for us to try to convince ourselves we are better off without him.

Are we that much in denial to adversity that we have to spin EVERYTHING as a positive for the team?

 

[brdmaverick]

If the Pats won three of four at the beginning of the season without Brady (and without Gronk for two of them), they can win without Gronk.

Agreed, they can, but they certainly aren't better off.

 

[PScottman]

Are we that much in denial to adversity that we have to spin EVERYTHING as a positive for the team?

Are we so eager for a burial shroud that we have to spin EVERYTHING as the funerary dirge of the entire season and negative to the team?

Knife cuts both ways.

Many have already conceded the point, the team is in NO way better. That was the meme forwarded. Conversely, the team plays the game with what they have, and even with the loss have likely a better than most opportunity to continue success. And at the end of the day, that's all ANY season is - simply an opportunity. Even in 2007, the historic year, it was just opportunity and nothing more through the season.

If I may, "You can get good look at a T-bone if you stick your head up a bull's ^%$, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

Nothing is guaranteed, but struggling through each and every football season as a fan is difficult enough given the outside influences such as the league, Goodell, etc, why in the seven *&^%s would we take additional time out of our lives to pile on internal "death is upon us" as well?

Doesn't mean we can't analyze and argue and debate, but neither polar extreme is sensical: the season isn't over and neither is the Super Bowl won.

Okay, done ranting like my own version of a mad man on a Sunday morning.

 

[mosslost]

Are we so eager for a burial shroud that we have to spin EVERYTHING as the funerary dirge of the entire season and negative to the team?

Knife cuts both ways.

Many have already conceded the point, the team is in NO way better. That was the meme forwarded. Conversely, the team plays the game with what they have, and even with the loss have likely a better than most opportunity to continue success. And at the end of the day, that's all ANY season is - simply an opportunity. Even in 2007, the historic year, it was just opportunity and nothing more through the season.

If I may, "You can get good look at a T-bone if you stick your head up a bull's ^%$, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's word for it?"

Nothing is guaranteed, but struggling through each and every football season as a fan is difficult enough given the outside influences such as the league, Goodell, etc, why in the seven *&^%s would we take additional time out of our lives to pile on internal "death is upon us" as well?

Doesn't mean we can't analyze and argue and debate, but neither polar extreme is sensical: the season isn't over and neither is the Super Bowl won.

Okay, done ranting like my own version of a mad man on a Sunday morning.

It's simply not possible the team is "better" without Gronk. But I think the team will make the Super Bowl anyway. Then it is just one game and I give us a 50/50 shot to win. If we get that far we will have an offense that is completely accustomed to not having Gronk at that time. There are lots of weapons and we have the GOAT.