Gronk retired

[papazoid]

a ploy to skip training camp and get more money

 

he will play again

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, papazoid said:

a ploy to skip training camp and get more money

 

he will play again

Let’s all hope this is incorrect.

[Dr. K]

Great player. Thug. 

[SouthNYfan]

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.

 

[Boatdrinks]

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. 

[dave mcbride]

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.

[SouthNYfan]

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 ??

[Bills Survivor]

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 March 25, 2019 by Bills Survivor

[dave mcbride]

Worth everyone's time who cares about this debate (and I realize not everyone does!): https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gronk-was-the-most-efficient-receiver-weve-seen/.

[JOSH ALLEN IS GOAT]

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

[dave mcbride]

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. 

[SouthNYfan]

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

[ColoradoBills]

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.

[Figster]

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 March 25, 2019 by Figster

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

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.

 

[dave mcbride]

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 March 25, 2019 by dave mcbride

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

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.

[Doc]

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. 

[Rocky Landing]

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.

[Doc]

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. 

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

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

Tom's win percentage for his career is 77%, the 29 games they played without Gronk 76%. 

[Estelle Getty]

Just wanted to chime in to say see ya later dbag...no respect for old gronk and enjoy dealing with all of the injuries your body has incurred. 

[SouthNYfan]

14 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

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. 

 

Reading is hard for you.

He had a significant effect on their offense.

I guess the back that they went something like 19-5 without Brady during his injury and suspension means that Brady isn't that important to their winning either, right?

14 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

Tom's win percentage for his career is 77%, the 29 games they played without Gronk 76%. 

 

The pats are like 79% without Brady.

Guess he's not important either, right??

[dave mcbride]

48 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

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.

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree - I'm good with that!

[SouthNYfan]

58 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

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.

 

 

He failed to hit 700 yards because he didn't play die to injury

He was dominant when he played

You can say you think longevity and availability (or lack of both) count against him, but he was dominant when he played

[Spiderweb]

5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Still doesn't excuse him using his bionic arm to try and cripple a guy with a cheap shot to the neck.

 

Sure, it's "just one play" to paraphrase @Gugny, but man. That's just filthy.

 

I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh..

[Doc]

51 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

Reading is hard for you.

He had a significant effect on their offense.

I guess the back that they went something like 19-5 without Brady during his injury and suspension means that Brady isn't that important to their winning either, right?

 

The pats are like 79% without Brady.

Guess he's not important either, right??

 

Thinking is hard for you.  The idea is to win games.  An impact player, much less a GOAT player, would significantly impact a team's wins and losses.  Gronk didn't.

 

As for Brady and the Cheaters winning without him, that's another discussion entirely.

[SouthNYfan]

12 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Thinking is hard for you.  The idea is to win games.  An impact player, much less a GOAT player, would significantly impact a team's wins and losses.  Gronk didn't.

 

As for Brady and the Cheaters winning without him, that's another discussion entirely.

 

Why is it another discussion??

YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key.

You brought Brady into it.

I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with.

Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning.

[stosh64]

2 hours ago, Figster said:

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.

Agreed.

[Jerome007]

21 hours ago, White Linen said:

His body was clearly breaking down, so what does his wonderful coach do?  Rides him and doubles down on his blocking responsibilities.  They could have gotten another year or two out of him by making some adjustments but instead they take.  I'm glad they did it and to see him go and he's definitely not my kind of person.  

Nice to know I'm not the only one that noticed this. He did a lot of HARD blocking last year.  I mean they won the SB but in regular season games when they were ahead, BB didn't care much. Sad to say, but I think HC have to disregard their players' health or they'd be filled with remorse every week. 

 

As for Gronk, yeah I hate the Pats but I don't hate the players. He was a fun dude, hard to do with BB as a coach!  What he did to Tre was despicable but neither the Bills players nor the league did anything about it so I won't lose my energy over that. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

43 minutes ago, Spiderweb said:

I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh..

 

...agreed...he had his moments....certainly the best of his era/last decade...GOAT is a stretch....Gonzo, Gates, Mackey, Winslow Sr, Newsome, Witten etc may not be in agreement...

[Chicken Boo]

Healthy, he's the best I've seen.

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

Why is it another discussion??

YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key.

You brought Brady into it.

I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with.

Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning.

 

That's a very real possibility.  

[SouthNYfan]

44 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

That's a very real possibility.  

 

Well.

Now that we've insulted each other and gone on about this...

If that's your stance on Brady as well then I think we can just agree to disagree, but I think we can both be on board that life in Buffalo and the NFL will be better off without Brady and BB.

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Why is it another discussion??

YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key.

You brought Brady into it.

I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with.

Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning.

Brady is 207-60 or 77.5%(Including playoffs 237-70 or 77.2%), since Brady has become the starter Bill Belichick's record without Brady starting is 13-6 or 68.4%. I don't know where you got the Pats*** win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with, it's almost 10 percentage points higher with Tom in the lineup.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html

 

 

 

 

[Rocky Landing]

2 hours ago, Spiderweb said:

I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh..

For me, it's a question of loyalty. Burfect, and Suh are defined by their play- dirty. But, neither of them ever elbow-dropped one of our guys. 

 

That being said, Gronk did apologize... but still: one of our guys!

[Success]

14 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

For me, it's a question of loyalty. Burfect, and Suh are defined by their play- dirty. But, neither of them ever elbow-dropped one of our guys. 

 

That being said, Gronk did apologize... but still: one of our guys!

I also never saw Suh do anything that could cause serious injury,  His offenses were more chippy.

[SouthNYfan]

48 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said:

Brady is 207-60 or 77.5%(Including playoffs 237-70 or 77.2%), since Brady has become the starter Bill Belichick's record without Brady starting is 13-6 or 68.4%. I don't know where you got the Pats*** win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with, it's almost 10 percentage points higher with Tom in the lineup.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders

 

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html

 

 

 

 

 

14-6 if you really want to be technical about

Casell went 11-5 

It was 0-0 when Brady guy hurt

NFL stats say Brady got the win bc he started but Cassel is the reason they won

So okay 77.4 vs 70%

 

7% difference really.

Tom is a huge reason, but my point was that with or without Brady they still won a good % of games.

Doc was saying that because the win % didn't change drastically without gronk that he wasn't important.

The win % not changing drastically without Brady, by his assessment that he applied to gronk, would imply that Brady wasn't that important either.

 

They both were very important and impactful, and looking just at records with vs without doesn't tell the whole picture.

[HOUSE]

On 3/24/2019 at 6:24 PM, Rico said:

Pats, please move up now ahead of #9 and take Hock.

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Without reading through this monster of a thread I am going to hope that somebody posted the video of St. Gronk concussing our starter corner after a play.......

 

 

And the video of our corner's teammates doing....nothing after that hit.  

 

On March 24, 2019 at 6:24 PM, Rico said:

Pats, please move up now ahead of #9 and take Hock.

 

Preach Rico!!