Jump to content

Gronk retired


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Lifted directly from thebiglead.com. Yes , I see that you put it in quotes. Anyway, I think the point was not about stats, but that the team wins games without the player. Their winning begins and ends with the QB, and probably won’t change until they get weaker at that position. Hopefully that occurs and they don’t have a Colts like transition to an Andrew Luck. 

 

Yeah I forgot to post the link

I was at work and got interrupted

Docs argument was that gronk isn't in consideration for the goat TE because the pats still won a bunch of games without him so he obviously didn't matter

By that argument Jordan should be removed since the bulls still won 55 games and a playoff series without him the year he retired to play baseball.

The pats were a very very good team without gronk, and absolutely all time great with him.

While the QB is the most important, trying to marginalize gronks greatness by saying the pats won a bunch without him is just asinine.

BB completely changed up their game plans with gronk out and adapted as such.

Gronks injuries are the only reason Eli has any rings, as those Giants teams couldn't defend te at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Yeah I forgot to post the link

I was at work and got interrupted

Docs argument was that gronk isn't in consideration for the goat TE because the pats still won a bunch of games without him so he obviously didn't matter

By that argument Jordan should be removed since the bulls still won 55 games and a playoff series without him the year he retired to play baseball.

The pats were a very very good team without gronk, and absolutely all time great with him.

While the QB is the most important, trying to marginalize gronks greatness by saying the pats won a bunch without him is just asinine.

BB completely changed up their game plans with gronk out and adapted as such.

Gronks injuries are the only reason Eli has any rings, as those Giants teams couldn't defend te at all.

 

Well, Gronkowski wasn’t in the NFL for Giants vs Pats* part one. Anyway, Gronkowski is HOF, but his lack of durability/ longevity is a DQ for “ goat” status to me. Other opinions will vary. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Yeah I forgot to post the link

I was at work and got interrupted

Docs argument was that gronk isn't in consideration for the goat TE because the pats still won a bunch of games without him so he obviously didn't matter

By that argument Jordan should be removed since the bulls still won 55 games and a playoff series without him the year he retired to play baseball.

The pats were a very very good team without gronk, and absolutely all time great with him.

While the QB is the most important, trying to marginalize gronks greatness by saying the pats won a bunch without him is just asinine.

BB completely changed up their game plans with gronk out and adapted as such.

Gronks injuries are the only reason Eli has any rings, as those Giants teams couldn't defend te at all.

 

Gronk wasn't around for Giants victory #1.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Well, Gronkowski wasn’t in the NFL for Giants vs Pats* part one. Anyway, Gronkowski is HOF, but his lack of durability/ longevity is a DQ for “ goat” status to me. Other opinions will vary. 

 

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Gronk wasn't around for Giants victory #1.

 

Sorry.

Eli wouldn't have a second ring ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good riddance.  I forgave him for being a Patriot since he was from Buffalo, but that changed when he blindsided Tre White during a petulant tantrum.  Maybe now he can work on his dance moves.  Great player, hall of famer no doubt, but a ***** nonetheless and not in the discussion with Tony G for GOAT.

Edited by Bills Survivor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

The greatest RB of all time retired at exactly the same age as Gronk. He played 118 games, but fewer than Gronk overall because the latter's postseason appearances.

 A tight end and running back is much different than a wide receiver 

The big difference: BLOCKING it's not easy to pound someone every day while they pound you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JOSH ALLEN IS GOAT said:

 A tight end and running back is much different than a wide receiver 

The big difference: BLOCKING it's not easy to pound someone every day while they pound you

I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that Jim Brown played in basically the same number of games as Gronk, and I don't think any other RB was nearly as dominant as him. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make. I'm just saying that Jim Brown played in basically the same number of games as Gronk, and I don't think any other RB was nearly as dominant as him. 

 

I'd say that gronk was an equivalent level of dominance as brown

I do know gronk dropped in the draft because of back injury concerns so the pats knew the risk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Helpmenow said:

Pats will be drafting a TE.

 

18 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

Thought they would be, this seals it IMO.

 

If Beane finds himself looking for a TE in Round 2 it would be great to jump back in with a trade with the Rams at #31 and steal a TE from the hoodie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

The elbow to Tre White was classless I'll give you that, but he was a hell of a player and had fun doing it under one of the most tight assed coaches in the history of the NFL. Glad he's gone and we dont have to play him twice a year now.

Never had a problem with Gronk until the elbow to Tre White.

 

Can't stand him now and have zero appreciation for anything Gronk related with the exception of his retirement from the NFL.

Edited by Figster
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

The greatest RB of all time retired at exactly the same age as Gronk. He played 118 games, but fewer than Gronk overall because the latter's postseason appearances.

 Ok I'll bite, who's your "greatest RB of all time"? Because Barry Sanders played more than 118 games and there's never been and will probably never will be a better RB. The Lions had nothing on offense to help him and he still tore it up like no one we've ever seen. EVERYONE knew he was getting the ball, yet still averaged 99.8 yards a game on the ground and almost 120 yards from scrimmage per game for his CAREER, no one was even close. 10 year career, over 3,000 carries, only missing seven games, while averaging 5.0 yards a carry. Never finished a year with less than 1,115 yards, while being the workhorse every year. I know what you'll say, he didn't win Super Bowls. I guess he wishes he drafted better or that he could've come 10 years later and put himself on the Pats*** so he could play with the best QB & Coach of all time, just like Gronk. The Pats*** are 22-6 without Gronk since he came in the league and more importantly 13-1 since 2016.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

 Ok I'll bite, who's your "greatest RB of all time"? Because Barry Sanders played more than 118 games and there's never been and will probably never will be a better RB. The Lions had nothing on offense to help him and he still tore it up like no one we've ever seen. EVERYONE knew he was getting the ball, yet still averaged 99.8 yards a game on the ground and almost 120 yards from scrimmage per game for his CAREER, no one was even close. 10 year career, over 3,000 carries, only missing seven games, while averaging 5.0 yards a carry. Never finished a year with less than 1,115 yards, while being the workhorse every year. I know what you'll say, he didn't win Super Bowls. I guess he wishes he drafted better or that he could've come 10 years later and put himself on the Pats*** so he could play with the best QB & Coach of all time, just like Gronk. The Pats*** are 22-6 without Gronk since he came in the league and more importantly 13-1 since 2016.

 

I believe that Jim Brown is in the running for greatest player of all time regardless of position. Have you ever watched film of him? He dominated the field. Sanders was a great player too, and I don't hold it against him for playing for a bad team (so be very careful about putting words in my mouth!). He didn't control that. 

 

The Pats record with our without Gronk doesn't really matter much to me or say much of anything. When he was on the field, he was utterly dominant and the stats back it up at pretty much every level. Over 15 ypc for his CAREER? And for a TE? That is remarkable. And 9.9 yards per target? That's first in modern history.

 

Just to be clear, I have no interest at all in longevity stats. I care about prime-era windows. Again, if you care about longevity stats, you're compelled to argue that Don Sutton and Phil Niekro were better pitchers than Sandy Koufax. Emmitt Smith played out the string as a sub-league average RB in terms of YPC in his final four seasons, and that got him the record. But that late-career counting-stat production hardly burnished his career. 

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I believe that Jim Brown is in the running for greatest player of all time regardless of position. Have you ever watched film of him? He dominated the field. Sanders was a great player too, and I don't hold it against him for playing for a bad team (so be very careful about putting words in my mouth!). He didn't control that. 

 

The Pats record with our without Gronk doesn't really matter much to me or say much of anything. When he was on the field, he was utterly dominant and the stats back it up at pretty much every level. 

 

Just to be clear, I have no interest at all in longevity stats. I care about prime-era windows. Again, if you care about longevity stats, you're compelled to argue that Don Sutton and Phil Niekro were better pitchers than Sandy Koufax. Emmitt Smith played out the string as a sub-league average RB in terms of YPC in his final four seasons, and that got him the record. But that late-career counting-stat production hardly burnished his career. 

I hear ya about the longevity and guys hanging around to break records, that's why I don't think Emmitt is the best RB & why I think Barry is the best, even though he only played 10 years. Jim Brown was obviously really good, but the players weren't the same as they have been for the last 25-30 years(And getting better by the year)When you say, when he was on the field he was utterly dominant, I agree for some of his career and disagree in other parts. Always a great blocker, but when just as much, if not more, of your job is to catch passes and rack up yards and in 44% of the years you played you fail to hit 700 yards receiving, to me that doesn't say dominant. Don't get me wrong there were times I didn't think anyone could stop him, but there just wasn't a long enough stretch of that play, in my opinion. With him not being able to crack the top 100 in receiving yards, I just can't do it. I appreciate the discussion Dave, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mannc said:

A statement that is impossible to prove, and which is directly refuted by (1) the endless winning that took place during the nine years that he played for the Pats, and (2) the fact that he made huge catch after huge catch to help them win actual games.  That happened; I saw it.

 

Not anywhere close to impossible to prove. You look at their record with him and without him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

Watch the tape, dude.  He was kind of showboating.  Probably pissed Gronk off.

If Tre's "showboating" actions "pissed Gronk off," without even coming close to drawing an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty (which is the case), that would be considered really good cornerback play. Quite the stretch to find fault with Tre on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

How about you get your head out of your own ass.

 

"And yes, Brady and the Patriots won the Super Bowl two years ago without Gronkowski playing (coming from 28-3 in case you haven’t heard). Even with those games included, here are the splits for Brady with and without Gronkowski since the latter entered the league in 2010:

With Gronkowski: 113 games, 2771 of 4332 (65.5%), 33217 pass yards (7.85 YPA), 255 pass TDs, 55 INTs

Without Gronkowski: 30 games, 711 of 1182 (60.2%), 8198 pass yards, 51 pass TDs, 22 INTs

If we translate that to a per-16-game rate for each, we get the following:

With Gronkowski: 392 of 599, 4703 pass yards, 36 TD, 8 INT

Without Gronkowski: 379 of 630, 4372 pass yards, 27 TD, 12 INT

Okay, but it may be hard to put those numbers in context. The “With Gronkowski” numbers are basically identical to Aaron Rodgers since the start of his career. The “Without Gronkowski” numbers are similar to Ryan Tannehill, if he completed fewer passes but threw for slightly more touchdowns"

 

So Aaron Rodgers vs tannehill numbers with and without him on the field.

 

Maybe you should really do your research before you start running your mouth.

 

You’d think a GOAT TE would have some effect on his team winning and losing. The fact is, he doesn’t. That and far fewer years than TG says he’s not the GOAT at TE. Maybe having 3-4 more 1,000 yards seasons or another 5 years playing at a high level, sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...