316 replies to this topic

[SumnerH]

Eh, not a lawyer, but not sure I'd wanna risk that.

Not a lawyer either but it's probably not a legal issue; the age of consent law in most US states is 16, and the federal laws against travelling abroad for sex are written with that cutoff point in mind.

[soxhop411]

"New England Patriot's Tight End Rob Gronkowski just returned from a team retreat in the Caribbean Island of Aruba. Rob enjoys meeting and taking pictures with fans of all ages. It's just his way of being a 'Patriot.' "
Jerry Shandrew

deadspin
http://deadspin.com/5895955/

Edited by soxhop411, 23 March 2012 - 01:47 PM.

[CaptainLaddie]

HONESTLY, that's fucking weird.

"He likes being a Patriot so much he spews his Patriotic fluid all over underage women!"

Can he stick to pornstars, please? Yeesh.

[j44thor]

I wonder how often Rex cries himself to sleep over not picking Gronk in the 2010 Draft. Not only would he have been the ideal fit for his offense but he probably would have considered Gronk a son by now. It might be sacrilegious to say but Gronk really would have been the ultimate Jet.

[MalzoneExpress]

Isn't Gronk's pose (tongue between spread fingers) the universal sign for cunnilingus? And, yes, it would be best if he stuck to porn stars and women over 21 years old.

[Reverend]

HONESTLY, that's fucking weird.

"He likes being a Patriot so much he spews his Patriotic fluid all over underage women!"

Can he stick to pornstars, please? Yeesh.

Isn't Gronk's pose (tongue between spread fingers) the universal sign for cunnilingus? And, yes, it would be best if he stuck to porn stars and women over 21 years old.

Patriot way... be a team player...

It all makes sense.

[DegenerateSoxFan]

I wonder how often Rex cries himself to sleep over not picking Gronk in the 2010 Draft. Not only would he have been the ideal fit for his offense but he probably would have considered Gronk a son by now. It might be sacrilegious to say but Gronk really would have been the ultimate Jet.

I'm just glad that BB traded up to keep the Ravens from getting him.

[Salva135]

I wonder how often Rex cries himself to sleep over not picking Gronk in the 2010 Draft. Not only would he have been the ideal fit for his offense but he probably would have considered Gronk a son by now. It might be sacrilegious to say but Gronk really would have been the ultimate Jet.

Thankfully he's the Patriots' most valuable asset behind Brady.

[Reverend]

Thankfully he's the Patriots' most valuable asset behind Brady.

I'm not sure that there is a legitimate theory of football that can support the claim that a TE can ever be the second most valuable asset behind a good QB.

Unless the TE is Batman. If Batman is playing TE, then yeah, sure. Otherwise: no.

[Salva135]

I'm not sure that there is a legitimate theory of football that can support the claim that a TE can ever be the second most valuable asset behind a good QB.

Unless the TE is Batman. If Batman is playing TE, then yeah, sure. Otherwise: no.

Who is the second most valuable asset (I'm talking trade-value wise) on the team?

[Reverend]

Wilfork.

[Reverend]

I don't care if he's 50 years old.

[Salva135]

If you think a 22 yr old Gronkowski coming off the best TE season of all time isn't worth as much as Wilfork on the open market, not sure what to say. His prime contract is going to dwarf Wilfork's.

And I was only discussing assets, not being position-specific. It's Brady, Gronk, then everyone else in terms of NFL value.

Edited by Salva135, 23 March 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[j44thor]

Wilfork.

I love Wilfork but have to disagree that he is more valuable than Gronk. Maybe 4-5 years ago that would be valid but in a passing league a NT that is a run stuffer first is not as valuable as the record setting TE that lead the NFL in TD receptions. My biggest gripe with the Pats is that they were well ahead of the curve in going to a pass heavy offense while being well behind the curve in developing a dominant pass D.

[Reverend]

I love Wilfork but have to disagree that he is more valuable than Gronk. Maybe 4-5 years ago that would be valid but in a passing league a NT that is a run stuffer first is not as valuable as the record setting TE that lead the NFL in TD receptions. My biggest gripe with the Pats is that they were well ahead of the curve in going to a pass heavy offense while being well behind the curve in developing a dominant pass D.

This seems to me like a recreation of the RB/WR argument and the later discovery that on average, left tackles got paid more.

There is no question in my mind that Gronk is an exceptional talent, but some pieces only realize their maximum potential value when other pieces are already in place--and this usually means the line, which is why linemen are, on average, paid so well, and Gronk doesn't look as good if Brady's jersey is dirty.

[Salva135]

This seems to me like a recreation of the RB/WR argument and the later discovery that on average, left tackles got paid more.

There is no question in my mind that Gronk is an exceptional talent, but some pieces only realize their maximum potential value when other pieces are already in place--and this usually means the line, which is why linemen are, on average, paid so well, and Gronk doesn't look as good if Brady's jersey is dirty.

That's all fair and well, and no one is denying Vince's importance to this team, arguably the most important defensive Patriot, I was just discussing players on the open market and their value.. in which case, Brady and Gronk are a clear 1,2... i.e, who is worth the best draft picks.

Edited by Salva135, 23 March 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Reverend]

That's all fair and well, and no one is denying Vince's importance to this team, arguably the most important defensive Patriot, I was just discussing players on the open market and their value.. in which case, Brady and Gronk are a clear 1,2... i.e, who is worth the most draft picks.

Yet that involves factors like free agency status and the differential worth a given player has to different teams given other personnel and things like that. At that point, market value of a player and the value of a player diverges radically.

I mean, the semantics (and I hate how people have abused this term, calling things that are real differences mere "semantics") may distort what we're talking about. But if we bracketed all the long term salary stuff and cap ramifications and you asked me who would we most want to keep on the team next year, I'd say Wilfork. Next two? Probably still Wilfork. And if you do still want to get into trade value stuff, Wilfork, I think, is signed through 2014 and Gronk only through 2013.

Edit: I was going to try to factor contracts in, but Wilfork is in the back end of his contract and one never knows if that's going to be renegotiated or not.

Edited by Reverend, 23 March 2012 - 06:16 PM.

[Salva135]

Yet that involves factors like free agency status and the differential worth a given player has to different teams given other personnel and things like that. At that point, market value of a player and the value of a player diverges radically.

I mean, the semantics (and I hate how people have abused this term, calling things that are real differences mere "semantics") may distort what we're talking about. But if we bracketed all the long term salary stuff and cap ramifications and you asked me who would we most want to keep on the team next year, I'd say Wilfork. Next two? Probably still Wilfork. And if you do still want to get into trade value stuff, Wilfork, I think, is signed through 2014 and Gronk only through 2013.

Edit: I was going to try to factor contracts in, but Wilfork is in the back end of his contract and one never knows if that's going to be renegotiated or not.

Well I made it clear I was only discussing asset/trade value as of the moment, which Gronk commands a higher value in than Wilfork. If I were told I could go into next season with only one of the two? I take Gronk all day.

Edited by Salva135, 23 March 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[Reverend]

Well I made it clear I was only discussing asset/trade value as of the moment, which Gronk commands a higher value in than Wilfork. If I were told I could go into next season with only one of the two? I take Gronk all day.

Then I guess we can agree to disagree.

I think they went to Gronk because he was there, but the marginal increase for the offense to going to him over, say, an average TE, is, I think, less than the marginal detriment to the defense of replacing Wilfork with an average defensive tackle. I actually don't think it's even close, given the relative importance I assign to the positions, but as per above, we can agree to disagree.

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

Not a lawyer either but it's probably not a legal issue; the age of consent law in most US states is 16, and the federal laws against travelling
abroad for sex are written with that cutoff point in mind.

Wait what? This goes against everything I have ever heard regarding satatory rape. I'm weirder out by it.

[soxfan121]

Wait what? This goes against everything I have ever heard regarding satatory rape. I'm weirder out by it.

Enough to cancel your fact finding trip to Thailand, Senator?

[quint]

If you think a 22 yr old Gronkowski coming off the best TE season of all time isn't worth as much as Wilfork on the open market, not sure what to say. His prime contract is going to dwarf Wilfork's.

And I was only discussing assets, not being position-specific. It's Brady, Gronk, then everyone else in terms of NFL value.

So the crux of your argument is prime asset value over performance based value?

Who gives a shit?

[Salva135]

Then I guess we can agree to disagree.

I think they went to Gronk because he was there, but the marginal increase for the offense to going to him over, say, an average TE, is, I think, less than the marginal detriment to the defense of replacing Wilfork with an average defensive tackle. I actually don't think it's even close, given the relative importance I assign to the positions, but as per above, we can agree to disagree.

So you think the 2011 Patriots would have fared better with a league-average TE replacing Gronk than with a league-average NT replacing Wilfork? Then we can surely agree to disagree.

[Salva135]

So the crux of your argument is prime asset value over performance based value?

Who gives a shit?

This all started with a "thank god he didn't go to the Jets!" comment. And I'm glad he's a Patriot because he's worth more in NE than he'd be in NY. And no, I don't give a shit. But Gronk is way more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

[quint]

This all started with a "thank god he didn't go to the Jets!" comment. And I'm glad he's a Patriot because he's worth more in NE than he'd be in NY. And no, I don't give a shit. But Gronk is way more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

Umm, no he's not. Aside from the team's qb, the most important play in the game is what is going on along the lines. It determines what can and cannot be done as far a skill positions and their respective defenders. And vice versa.

Thinking a TE is more important than any OL/DL is very simply, wrong.

Edited by quint, 23 March 2012 - 08:06 PM.

[soxfan121]

And no, I don't give a shit. But Gronk is way more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

I see what you did there.

FWIW, Gronkowski will almost assuredly get a richer contract that Vince (5/$40M/$25MG) did after Vince's rookie deal (i.e. the one that changed the rookie contract rules) expired and he got the (lower) DT franchise tag when his impact as a 3-4 NT was more akin to the DE franchise tag level. IOW, lots of factors contributed to Vince Wilfork being underpaid, even on his second contract.

However, I'd be shocked if Gronkowski was paid more than $10M on any long term deal, as that would set a new high water mark for TE contracts. IOW, he is NOT getting Larry Fitzgerald/Calvin Johnson money. Teams rarely obliterate the established salary structure for positions; Vernon Davis is at $8M/season now, with a bunch of guys at $7M. Come to think of it, Gronk would probably slide right into the $9.5M slot currently held by Welker's franchise tag if Gronk gets extended this time next year.

[Salva135]

I see what you did there.

FWIW, Gronkowski will almost assuredly get a richer contract that Vince (5/$40M/$25MG) did after Vince's rookie deal (i.e. the one that changed the rookie contract rules) expired and he got the (lower) DT franchise tag when his impact as a 3-4 NT was more akin to the DE franchise tag level. IOW, lots of factors contributed to Vince Wilfork being underpaid, even on his second contract.

However, I'd be shocked if Gronkowski was paid more than $10M on any long term deal, as that would set a new high water mark for TE contracts. IOW, he is NOT getting Larry Fitzgerald/Calvin Johnson money. Teams rarely obliterate the established salary structure for positions; Vernon Davis is at $8M/season now, with a bunch of guys at $7M. Come to think of it, Gronk would probably slide right into the $9.5M slot currently held by Welker's franchise tag if Gronk gets extended this time next year.

Who said he was going to get Fitzgerald/CJ money? You're creating strawman arguments here. All I said was that Gronk was more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

And to address Quint:

Thinking a TE is more important than any OL/DL is very simply, wrong.

doesn't really address the fact that Gronk had the most productive TE season of all time in his second year. The Pats are better with Gronk and league-average NT than with Vince and a league-average TE not named Gronk.

Edited by Salva135, 23 March 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[Seels]

Umm, no he's not. Aside from the team's qb, the most important play in the game is what is going on along the lines. It determines what can and cannot be done as far a skill positions and their respective defenders. And vice versa.

Thinking a TE is more important than any OL/DL is very simply, wrong.

Thinking it's as simple and black and white as you make it out to be is very wrong.

[quint]

Thinking it's as simple and black and white as you make it out to be is very wrong.

I was making it anything other than simple, but thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[quint]

Who said he was going to get Fitzgerald/CJ money? You're creating strawman arguments here. All I said was that Gronk was more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

And to address Quint:



doesn't really address the fact that Gronk had the most productive TE season of all time in his second year. The Pats are better with Gronk and league-average NT than with Vince and a league-average TE not named Gronk.

Gronk could have had THE most productive season ever by a TE, cured AIDS and let Perseus ride him into battle against the gods but that doesn't change the fact that line play is the pendulum upon which every NFL play swings.

Feel free to think otherwise, just as I am free to ponder why membership standards have fallen so far, so fast.

Edited by quint, 23 March 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[soxfan121]

Who said he was going to get Fitzgerald/CJ money? You're creating strawman arguments here. All I said was that Gronk was more valuable than Wilfork going forward.

1. We've all read, multiple times, "all you said". Since your posts are, on average, two sentences I'm figuring a couple of us have read them twice. And trust me - we ALL know you think Gronk is more valuable than Wilfork going forward. Understanding your argument is not the problem.

2. As has been repeatedly pointed out, your argument is not particularly convincing and seems to be lacking supporting evidence.

3. Understanding the money component of the "value" argument is essential to an informed discussion. And since you are correct in one very narrow way - i.e. that Gronkowski will get more money than Wilfork - it should be acknowledged. However, that victory is a technicality, for the reasons explained.

4. Speculating about what Gronkowski's contract might be seems, to me, an acceptable tangent in a discussion of his relative value and understanding his contractual peers, and providing some context, is not creating a strawman. It is a simple statement of fact; a TE is not paid like a WR, the top TE makes $8M, the top WR makes $15M, ergo, Gronk is more likely to get $9.5M or $10M.

5. Finally, as has been pointed out, your thesis statement is extremely debatable. In fact, I think you severely underrate Wilfork. Vince Wilfork has been a contender for "best interior DL in football" for a good long while now and is unquestionably the best player on a below-average defense. His value includes, but is not limited to, his on-field play, his contractual situation, his behind-the-scenes leadership, his position in the off-field activities of the franchise, etc. It's not a simple calculation. Gronkowski has some very desirable attributes and has demonstrated great skill but he is not and will not be the unquestioned most important player on an above-average offense. His primary positive attributes are his age and contractual situation. He's a wonderful player and a very entertaining chap but let's not get carried away here.

[Seels]

Gronk could have had THE most productive season ever by a TE, cured AIDS and let Perseus ride him into battle against the gods but that doesn't change the fact that line play is the pendulum upon which every NFL play swings.

Feel free to think otherwise, just as I am free to ponder why membership standards have fallen so far, so fast.

Is this really needed?

Gronkowski DID just have the most productive season ever for a TE in any way you can measure -- and you're saying that the mere fact that he isn't directly involved with every play (which I'm not sure is really true anyway) he is less important than someone on the line. Wilfork, great as he is, is a part of the run defense much more than the pass defense -- while Gronkowski is one of the best run blockers and pass catchers in the league.

This is your exact quote: Thinking a TE is more important than any OL/DL is very simply, wrong.

Seems pretty black and white to me. This literally means that it's very wrong to think Rob Gronkowski is less important than Dan Connelly or Kyle Love ----- hyperbole for the sake of it.

[absintheofmalaise]

No, it isn't needed at all. Seriously, if you can't argue the post without attacking the poster don't bother.

[quint]

No, it isn't needed at all. Seriously, if you can't argue the post without attacking the poster don't bother.

Except I'm not attacking anyone, at all. If repeating a point over and over again past the point of frustration is attacking someone, so be it.

Edited by quint, 23 March 2012 - 09:37 PM.

[quint]

and you're saying that the mere fact that he isn't directly involved with every play (which I'm not sure is really true anyway) he is less important than someone on the line.

And this is where the disconnect has occured. I never once implied that percentage of plays involving him was a factor; I was flat out saying that offensive line factors quite a bit more in the success of any one play than anything a skill player does.

In it's most simple form, if no one blocks for the quarterback, the ball isn't advancing anywhere.

It would behoove you to occasionally ask yourself "am I really grasping the subject matter at hand" instead of attempting to flesh out a point of discussion that does not exist.

Or go bitch to a mod, and see if you can get someone sent to a corner.

Either way, I no longer care.

Edited by quint, 23 March 2012 - 09:49 PM.

[Salva135]

I am sick of getting shat on in this forum. All I suggested was that Gronk, behind Brady, was the single most valuable asset in the here and now based on what the Patriots could get from him in the open market. I had no interest in delving into the conceptual debate about the value of an elite NT vs an elite TE.

And by the way, Quint, you are a complete jackass with your posting methods.

Edited by Salva135, 24 March 2012 - 02:18 AM.

[WheresDewey]

Gronk is 8 years younger than Wilfork. While there certainly is legitimate debate about the relative value of their positions and relative value to the Pats winning right now, Gronk is clearly more valuable moving forward for the simple reason that, barring injury, he has more years of play left in his freak of a body. I don't see anything controversial about saying that Gronk is the Pats' 2nd most valuable asset behind Brady.

[j44thor]

Gronk could have had THE most productive season ever by a TE, cured AIDS and let Perseus ride him into battle against the gods but that doesn't change the fact that line play is the pendulum upon which every NFL play swings.

Feel free to think otherwise, just as I am free to ponder why membership standards have fallen so far, so fast.

You do realize that the TE often factors into line play right? Lets play this game, we saw what happened to the Pats offense with an average TE (injured Gronk) vs. what happened with the best TE in football (non-injured Gronk) the difference was worlds apart.

Now lets think back to when Koppen was injured and replaced by Connolly who was then replaced by McDonald. How much of a step did the offense really lose? You can mask a weaker internal OL player by shifting the line and assigning double teams appropriately.

A TE is on his own for much of his play.

To think that adding Carl Nicks and a league average TE and subtracting Gronk would have made for a more productive offense this season is laughable.

[Toe Nash]

Gronk is a transcendent talent, and almost certainly has already had his greatest season. He'll never be as healthy and dynamic as he was in 2011, because the high ankle sprain he suffered on Pollard's tackle is just the first of many injuries that a guy like Gronk will accumulate as his career progresses. He invites contact and relishes the physical hell-no-I-won't-go-down spirit that is a trademark of all great tight ends. I'm not saying that it's all downhill from here, but it's unlikely he (or anyone else, frankly) will ever have a season as consistently brilliant as the one he just had. It wasn't just the mind-boggling production, it was the breathtaking manner in with he compiled those numbers.

This is a long way of saying that I think the Pats are content to wait and watch how Gronkowski rebounds from this injury. The organization will carefully monitor his health and overall effectiveness over the course of at least another grueling season before they consider opening the vault. That's just how they roll, and it makes good business sense. The risk from an accounting standpoint is if Gronk returns and dominates, then the team will end up paying considerably more to retain him than if they had locked him up earlier. That's a risk the Pats are usually willing to take.

He had a worse injury in college and people weren't sure he would ever be the same player. He's a freak. He doesn't really carry any more risk than any other TE.

[quint]

You do realize that the TE often factors into line play right? Lets play this game, we saw what happened to the Pats offense with an average TE (injured Gronk) vs. what happened with the best TE in football (non-injured Gronk) the difference was worlds apart.

Now lets think back to when Koppen was injured and replaced by Connolly who was then replaced by McDonald. How much of a step did the offense really lose? You can mask a weaker internal OL player by shifting the line and assigning double teams appropriately.

A TE is on his own for much of his play.

To think that adding Carl Nicks and a league average TE and subtracting Gronk would have made for a more productive offense this season is laughable.

I am aware that Tight Ends often factor into line play. Conversely then you must realize there are plays when they do not.

So your game, as it were, is that the offense without Gronkowski and coming within a dropped pass of winning a championship somehow = bad? That their TE play is suddenly average? That may be underscoring what Aaron Hernandez brings to the table, but I guess that could be subjective. Possibly. I'm pretty sure it's been hashed out here about a billion times recently, but New England's offense struggled when opposing teams had the personnel to clog the middle of the field, while pressuring Brady with four linemen and daring the Patriots to beat them deep, regardless of who was suiting up and playing the TE position.

As for your supposition on New England's line play, I'm not sure how to take it. I mean, sure you could argue your point fairly effectively but couldn't someone argue just as effectively how the center position's play last year was a testament to their understanding of how crucial line depth is? They do tend to favor players on the line that can slide into multiple positions effectively.

I'm also unsure of how Carl Banks and league average TE factor into the discussion. I never posted any thing of the sort and it's kind of a weird statement. However, if you really think a TE is on his own for most of any play, that's something I would deem laughable.

So... yeah, just to repeat my initial point of contention, I do not believe a skill player is more valuable to an offensive unit than a lineman. Not that I'm breaking any new ground here, games are primarily won and lost based on line play. Yes there are exceptions, but one really doesn't need to look any further than New England's first championship season, who they drafted in the first two rounds, and the flotsam they had at RB and WR to see value in the point.

Edited by quint, 24 March 2012 - 08:54 PM.

[Seels]

"Games are won in the trenches" needs to go right there with defense / pitching wins championships and the rest of sports cliche hell. Balance and individual game performance matters, not some thoughtless cliche.

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I'm not sure that there is a legitimate theory of football that can support the claim that a TE can ever be the second most valuable asset behind a good QB. Unless the TE is Batman. If Batman is playing TE, then yeah, sure. Otherwise: no.

Look what you did to this thread...

Are you proud of yourself?

[Reverend]

Look what you did to this thread...

Are you proud of yourself?

I...

I uh...

Dammit.

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

Correct me if I'm wrong Quint, but did you actually just say that every offensive and defensive lineman is more valuable than any tight end?

Edited by The Best Catch in 100 Years, 26 March 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Reverend]

Correct me if I'm wrong Quint, but did you actually just say that every offensive and defensive lineman is more valuable than any tight end?

I think he, and myself, are saying that skill players become more valuable only once the line in in place to make their value recoverable. This was The Blind Side realization when they ran the nubmers and found out that, on average, left tackles make the most after QBs, and then they started those averages held for other lineman as well. Obviously, Gronk is exceptional at TE, but his value would be mitigated were he always double teamed and if Brady were covered in mud all the time. As such, the only teams I would expcet to bid high for his services are teams that already have the line nailed down or who are poorly run.

Nobody wants to be the all WR Detroit Lions. Well, except that one guy...

[The Best Catch in 100 Years]

I think he, and myself, are saying that skill players become more valuable only once the line in in place to make their value recoverable. This was The Blind Side realization when they ran the nubmers and found out that, on average, left tackles make the most after QBs, and then they started those averages held for other lineman as well. Obviously, Gronk is exceptional at TE, but his value would be mitigated were he always double teamed and if Brady were covered in mud all the time. As such, the only teams I would expcet to bid high for his services are teams that already have the line nailed down or who are poorly run.

Nobody wants to be the all WR Detroit Lions. Well, except that one guy...

I don't really disagree with any of this--the offensive and defensive lines are indeed massively important, and Gronk's production was helped quite a bit by the Patriots' excellent offensive line play in 2011--but you have to account for replacement level. The question isn't really whose position is more important to the team's success, it's who has the bigger discrepancy between his value and that of the average scrap heap guy at his position. Also, do you not need skill players to win? I'd invest more in the offensive line than in WR/RB/TE, but is an offensive line's value not mitigated somewhat if a team's receivers can't get open or catch the ball, or its running backs can't find the hole/run fast?

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Gronk could have had THE most productive season ever by a TE, cured AIDS and let Perseus ride him into battle against the gods but that doesn't change the fact that line play is the pendulum upon which every NFL play swings.

Hey, two out of three ain't bad!

[j44thor]

I think he, and myself, are saying that skill players become more valuable only once the line in in place to make their value recoverable. This was The Blind Side realization when they ran the nubmers and found out that, on average, left tackles make the most after QBs, and then they started those averages held for other lineman as well. Obviously, Gronk is exceptional at TE, but his value would be mitigated were he always double teamed and if Brady were covered in mud all the time. As such, the only teams I would expcet to bid high for his services are teams that already have the line nailed down or who are poorly run.

Nobody wants to be the all WR Detroit Lions. Well, except that one guy...

What this discussion was about is who the most important players on the NE Pats were period.
There was an argument for Wilfork which I can understand and for last season I would have considered Matt Light (who I have a feeling we are going to find out was vastly underrated) as well. Quint then spouted off that no TE could possibly be as important as any OL player which is just ridiculous. Dan Connolly showed us just how easy it is to get average OL play which is really all you need with the Pats controlled short passing game.

Lets look at this another way. If Gronk or Mankins end up going on IR in training camp who ends up a bigger loss to the offense? My vote is Gronk and I don't think it is close.

[soxhop411]

RT @JumboHart: . @RobGronkowski tells customers to "Gronk if you love Dunkin Donuts". And then whispers "Honk your horn." #Pat ...

[SunkToANewLowell]

party with Gronk for charity

http://deadspin.com/...ing-for-charity