Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

As the Gronk Turns


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
284 replies to this topic

#1 RedOctober3829


  • SoSH Member


  • 14465 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:51 PM

@RapSheet: On Gronk: The Patriots hope to have him back by Week 3. I'm told he will be back by Week 4. Not being on PUP paid off.

Edited by RedOctober3829, 28 September 2013 - 08:19 PM.


#2 Morgan's Magic Snowplow


  • SoSH Member


  • 8031 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:53 PM

@RapSheet: On Gronk: The Patriots hope to have him back by Week 3. I'm told he will be back by Week 4. Not being on PUP paid off.

 

Make your last two RealFantasy picks before the Pats game or somebody is going to make them for you.



#3 Garshaparra

  • 85 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 11:33 AM

Gronk 50/50 for this week, per ESPN: http://espn.go.com/b...ots-back-sunday



#4 dynomite

  • 4326 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:00 PM

I have two questions:

1) What's the chance of reinjury?
2) How many snaps does Gronk need to play to be worth activating on Sunday?

#5 Reggie's Racquet

  • 1685 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:18 PM

I have two questions:

1) What's the chance of reinjury?
2) How many snaps does Gronk need to play to be worth activating on Sunday?

1) I'm not sure anyone but the Gronk knows the real answer to this question. 

2) Two if both snaps result in red zone touchdown passes to him.



#6 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 12006 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:32 PM

I have two questions:

1) What's the chance of reinjury?
2) How many snaps does Gronk need to play to be worth activating on Sunday?

 

1) No one can give a reliable answer to this - even DRS would just be guessing. Higher than it would be next week is a near certainty though.

2) See #1. Next week is (arguably) a tougher, more important gam. Although being out of conference, it's not nearly as important as Week 5 against a Bengals team that could be fighting for an AFC playoff BYE. 

 

I'd be more conservative - I wouldn't bring him back until Week 5, though I would have him in a contact practice (or whatever passes for one these days) during next week and I'd list him as questionable. 

 

Even losing the next two games is not as bad as losing to the Bengals and nothing could be worse than Gronk missing weeks 7 & 8 (@ Jets, MIA). Division, conference then everyone else.



#7 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 6847 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 12:42 PM

 

1) No one can give a reliable answer to this - even DRS would just be guessing. Higher than it would be next week is a near certainty though.

2) See #1. Next week is (arguably) a tougher, more important gam. Although being out of conference, it's not nearly as important as Week 5 against a Bengals team that could be fighting for an AFC playoff BYE. 

 

I'd be more conservative - I wouldn't bring him back until Week 5, though I would have him in a contact practice (or whatever passes for one these days) during next week and I'd list him as questionable. 

 

Even losing the next two games is not as bad as losing to the Bengals and nothing could be worse than Gronk missing weeks 7 & 8 (@ Jets, MIA). Division, conference then everyone else.

 

Sort of curious how you come to that specific of an opinion.  I have no idea of how to have an opinion on this without seeing a medical report.  I dont even know how to have an uninformed opinion on this without watching him play. 

 

I will say I disagree, Id much rather win the next two games and lose to the Bengals in week 5 than vice versa, but that wouldnt effect my decison on when to bring Gronk back.  

 

Id decide strictly based on a "does he feel ready to go and is the risk of reinjury below x" with x being really small.  If the doctors are saying another week makes a huge difference in reinjury rate, by all means play in conservative and wait, but I have zero clue if that's true or not.

 

I agree with the sentiment that he's worth activating even in a really limited role and on a short leash if the reinjury risk is low enough.  A handful of snaps in the red zone is probably worth a gameday roster spot.


Edited by Stitch01, 17 September 2013 - 12:43 PM.


#8 neil

  • 664 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:54 PM

Would there be any benefits in having Gronk come back if he was limited to certain actions? For exmaple, if he can run routes but not block is it worth putting him out there? 

 

Part of me feels like having him out there if he can run routes would be big for us right now, given the limited options we have at WR/TE. Other teams are going to wise up that taking out Edelman is the way to totally shut the Pats down. Gronk would keep the D more "honest".

 

Although on the flip-side it seems stupid to play someone coming back from injury if they aren't 100% ready to go.



#9 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 6847 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 01:57 PM

I think that would have a benefit, especially in the red zone, but I think Id personally play it more conservative and not play Gronk in the situation you described.



#10 Mloaf71

  • 74 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:08 PM

I'd ease him back into the lineup as a blocker on extra points before bringing him into other game situations...



#11 Ralphwiggum

  • 1125 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:09 PM

That seems like something the other team would figure out pretty quickly (every time Gronk is on the field they are throwing the ball).  I am not sure how much that would negate the benefit of keeping the D "honest".

 

I know this is just hypothetical but I'm not sure how they would come to that kind of conclusion anyway.  He could obviously get hurt doing anything out there (see the play on which he originally hurt his forearm) but generally speaking it seems like the risk of re-injury would be higher on plays where he is ending up with the ball in his hands and having linebackers and safeties trying to hit him really hard afterwards.

 

Edit:  And it just seems hard to believe that Belichick is going to put him out there if he can't do everything that is required of his position.


Edited by Ralphwiggum, 17 September 2013 - 02:10 PM.


#12 wutang112878

  • 4884 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:24 PM


 

Edit:  And it just seems hard to believe that Belichick is going to put him out there if he can't do everything that is required of his position.

 

I know it was the Superbowl and thats a very different situation, but he was useless in the SB and still played.  And last year when he came back the last week of the season, he didnt seem to be 100% either



#13 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 12006 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:31 PM

 

Sort of curious how you come to that specific of an opinion.  I have no idea of how to have an opinion on this without seeing a medical report.  I dont even know how to have an uninformed opinion on this without watching him play. 

 

 

I noted that no one knows nothing twice in two sentences and then used that uncertainty to say I'd be more conservative than the thread topic. I then went on to note the relative importance of the week 5 opponent as opposed to the two non-conference opponents in the next two weeks. 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know how I could have more clearly stated my opinion or couched it more as an opinion based on nothing. It's pretty explicit.

 

We agree - no one knows enough without inside knowledge. Lacking that, we're all just stating opinions based on nothing. 



#14 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 23291 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:32 PM

I'd ease him back into the lineup as a blocker on extra points before bringing him into other game situations...

 

You remember how he arm was broken in the first place, right?



#15 Stitch01


  • SoSH Member


  • 6847 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:37 PM

 

I noted that no one knows nothing twice in two sentences and then used that uncertainty to say I'd be more conservative than the thread topic. I then went on to note the relative importance of the week 5 opponent as opposed to the two non-conference opponents in the next two weeks. 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't know how I could have more clearly stated my opinion or couched it more as an opinion based on nothing. It's pretty explicit.

 

We agree - no one knows enough without inside knowledge. Lacking that, we're all just stating opinions based on nothing. 

 

Fair enough, I think picking a randomly generated number between week 3 and week 6 would be as accurate and it looks like we're in agreement.



#16 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6334 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 02:44 PM

 

You remember how he arm was broken in the first place, right?

 

Well someone's sarcasm detector is off today



#17 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8173 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:07 PM

I'd ease him back into the lineup as a blocker on extra points before bringing him into other game situations...

 

:) cute....



#18 Ralphwiggum

  • 1125 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:12 PM

 

I know it was the Superbowl and thats a very different situation, but he was useless in the SB and still played.  And last year when he came back the last week of the season, he didnt seem to be 100% either

 

I didn't word my original post very well, but there is a difference between not being 100% and not being able to execute specific tasks that are required of a certain position.


Edited by Ralphwiggum, 17 September 2013 - 03:13 PM.


#19 wutang112878

  • 4884 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:15 PM

 

I didn't word my original post very well, but there is a difference between not being 100% and not being able to execute specific tasks that are required of a certain position.

 

Take last year when he came back with the cast, do you really think he was able to execute blocks?  I am sure they would ask him to, but I really doubt he was a capable blocker



#20 Bleedred

  • 3908 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:25 PM

The photo of him on ESPN Boston looks like he's lost a good 20-30 pounds of muscle.  His pipes are downright thin.



#21 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6399 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:29 PM

 

Take last year when he came back with the cast, do you really think he was able to execute blocks?  I am sure they would ask him to, but I really doubt he was a capable blocker

Against Miami he blocked for runs 6 times, pass-blocked 3 times, and ran 16 routes. Against Houston he run-blocked 2 times and ran 5 routes. For the season he blocked (325 run, 76 pass) more than he went out in pass routes (349 times), so it does seem like they tailored things for him a bit.



#22 MarcSullivaFan

  • 1815 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:39 PM

I'd ease him back into the lineup as a blocker on extra points before bringing him into other game situations...


Well done.

#23 wutang112878

  • 4884 posts

Posted 17 September 2013 - 03:54 PM

Against Miami he blocked for runs 6 times, pass-blocked 3 times, and ran 16 routes. Against Houston he run-blocked 2 times and ran 5 routes. For the season he blocked (325 run, 76 pass) more than he went out in pass routes (349 times), so it does seem like they tailored things for him a bit.

 

So I am unequivocally is basically what you are saying.  -1 for me today



#24 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6334 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 01:14 PM


"So far there's really nothing new to report," Gronkowski said. "And I'm just day to day and progressing every week and I've progressed significantly since last week."

The 24-year-old said he is making "big-time" strides in his recovery and has been a regular on the practice field the last three weeks. He was listed as a limited participant in practice each of the past two weeks. The Patriots will submit their first injury report of the week later Wednesday.

 

Yates



#25 ShaneTrot

  • 4423 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

NFL Media PR
‏@InsideNFLMedia
Also from @RapSheet: Patriots TE Rob Gronkowski "very unlikely" to play today. Issue is more with his arm than his backI

It's still the arm after all this time. Wow.



#26 soxfan121


  • minidope/racontuer


  • 12006 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 11:31 AM

Ian Rappaport knows less about Gronk than my bulldog. Anything RapSheet tweets isn't worth paying attention to or worrying about. 



#27 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8173 posts

Posted 23 September 2013 - 12:03 PM

if the issue is that his arm is still not strong enough, that's not surprising -- if the issue is medical, that's problematic.



#28 Dick Pole Upside

  • 3204 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:40 AM

He was inactive.



#29 drleather2001


  • given himself a skunk spot


  • 13052 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 02:34 PM

He didn't lose weight.  He was just skinny and un-jacked.



#30 SeoulSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 10162 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:33 PM

Ian Rappaport knows less about Gronk than my bulldog. Anything RapSheet tweets isn't worth paying attention to or worrying about.


I love you SF121.

#31 SouthernBoSox


  • SoSH Member


  • 7851 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 10:15 PM


He didn't lose weight.  He was just skinny and un-jacked.

If he isn't one of your favorite players, regardless of whatever your team is, then you just aren't paying attention.

#32 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8173 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:00 AM

I'm paying attn -- except for his uni i hate the frat boy macho shit.



#33 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8317 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:29 PM

This week, Gronk has participated in practice on a limited basis both Wednesday and Thursday.  His status for Sunday is still to be determined.  Per a league source, however, the outlook currently is not optimistic.

 

http://profootballta...not-optimistic/



#34 SeoulSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 10162 posts

Posted 26 September 2013 - 10:45 PM

 

Reading the whole article, it provides no new information -- other than regurgitating the same empty "report" about the arm being the bigger issue.

 

Of course, if you had read THAT "report", the "issue" isn't that the arm hasn't healed but simply needs more strength. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the "league source" is CrapSheet himself. 



#35 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3034 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:05 AM

 

On CSNNE Greg Bedard said that ProFootballTalk is very tight with Drew Rosenhaus, Gronk's agent.  Said there probably is a lot of validity to the report for that reason.  



#36 Toe Nash

  • 2745 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 07:46 AM

I'm paying attn -- except for his uni i hate the frat boy macho shit.

Yeah all those pro football players are intellectual, sensitive guys with deep thinking on the major issues of the day. I love smart "non-jock" players like Greg Maddux but they are few and far between. Gronk's a meathead but he's funny, charismatic and doesn't take himself seriously (and as far as we know he's a good guy). Enjoy it.



#37 SeoulSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 10162 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 10:07 AM

Ian Rappaport knows less about Gronk than my bulldog. Anything RapSheet tweets isn't worth paying attention to or worrying about. 

 

To reinforce the idea that Rapshit really has no freaking idea, here is his tweet on Gronk's injury today: https://twitter.com/...605497187688450

 

 

Tough to get a handle on #Gronk's status for Sunday. No decision yet. This was the week Pats always pointed to. Gronk has been more cautious



#38 soxhop411


  • SoSH Member


  • 7720 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 12:03 PM

“@shalisemyoung: maybe it's a sign, maybe it's not, but Gronk's travel bag has shoulder pads, etc in it”
https://twitter.com/shalisemyoung/status/383632612147101696 mabrowndog is a dingus

Hopefully BB is not trolling us.

#39 DrewDawg


  • SoSH Member


  • 6596 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 01:34 PM

“@shalisemyoung: maybe it's a sign, maybe it's not, but Gronk's travel bag has shoulder pads, etc in it”
https://twitter.com/...632612147101696

Hopefully BB is not trolling us.

 

I don't know. It's actually funnier if he is.



#40 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8317 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:06 PM

Gronk and Amendola both listed as Questionable. I'm hearing buzz that both may try to play on a limited basis, but we'll see

 

https://twitter.com/...682825087905792



#41 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8317 posts

Posted 27 September 2013 - 03:07 PM

Source on Gronk and Amendola: "As of today, they are playing. But a lot of time between now and Sunday night."

 

https://twitter.com/...684247460278272



#42 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15332 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 10:28 AM

How often do you see this? TEAM being aggressive, PLAYER wants to hold back...

 

http://bostonherald....omorrows_status

 

 

 

The Patriots believe Gronkowski is healthy enough to make his season debut after an offseason that included back surgery and a series of arm procedures. However, Gronkowski and his camp are wary about returning too soon, particularly after last season when he broke his forearm and then re-injured it when he returned for the playoffs. - See more at: http://bostonherald....h.u4ux1N6G.dpuf

 



#43 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10574 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:08 PM

I don't trust anything the Herald or Glob print. The Pats, universally, and Gronk, in this case, are both tight lipped about any return dates.  How would the Herald, and only the Herald, have this info?

 

I mean, aside from needing something to print?



#44 Williams Head Case

  • 1653 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:30 PM

 

Yup. RT @jeffphowe: Sources: Rob Gronkowski, Patriots divided on tomorrow's status http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2013/09/sources_rob_gronkowski_patriots_divided_on_tomorrows_status 

 

 

 

 

Schefter also has it too

 

 

 

But it goes beyond the Patriots' decision and to Gronkowski's circle of family, friends and advisers, who have not been as anxious as the rest of New England to have the tight end back on the field, even though he caught about 15 passes in practice as recently as Thursday, according sources. It sets up a mystery for which only Gronkowski's inner circle would appear to have the answer.


#45 Tony C


  • SoSH Member


  • 8173 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 12:44 PM

How often do you see this? TEAM being aggressive, PLAYER wants to hold back...

 

http://bostonherald....omorrows_status

 

 

 

Isn't that the usual? Players have to think about their long-term health, their next contract and in Gronk's case all the salary factors Adam S. lays out in his piece. Seemed pretty commonsensical per that article (opposite incentives compared to Vollmer), though Gronk getting applauded for flopping around dance floors during the off-season still strikes me as applauding something that probably wasn't a huge deal, but at least potentially detracted from his return (I forget the details, wasn't there some photos of him falling over onto his back or something?).  Whatever probably not a factor -- just your basic football playing dunce of the particularly self-absorbed variety.

 

In this case, I'm all for being as sure he's healthy as is possible. Definitely frustrating and frustrating to think that he's putting his own interests above the team's, but can't particularly blame him and it may well be that what's the safest for him is the safest for the team, too. On the flip side, if he's getting hit in practice, is that BB's way of embarrassing him in front of his teammates to goad him into playing -- i.e., hard to face up to your peers if they know you can take a hit from them but refuse to do it for them during a game. Just that this story leaked, presumably from the Pats' camp, indicates an attempt to embarrass Gronk.



#46 kolbitr

  • 572 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:16 PM

On the flip side, if he's getting hit in practice, is that BB's way of embarrassing him in front of his teammates to goad him into playing -- i.e., hard to face up to your peers if they know you can take a hit from them but refuse to do it for them during a game. Just that this story leaked, presumably from the Pats' camp, indicates an attempt to embarrass Gronk.


Why would you read this as being leaked by the Pats? I am not sure that there is anyone at the Herald that the team would "leak" information to. Nor can I recall the team trying to embarrass a player surreptitiously, especially outside of contract negotiations.

There might well be substance behind this, but that seems to be a particularly dark reading of the news.

#47 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6399 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 01:34 PM

This kind of story strikes me as exactly the reason Belichick doesn't talk about injuries.



#48 Corsi


  • Wes Chamberlain's Sasha Rockets


  • 8317 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:10 PM

wtf?

 

Source says "things changed over night" and neither Gronk nor Amendola traveled to Atlanta

 

https://twitter.com/...046444157890561



#49 CaptainLaddie


  • dj paul pfieffer


  • 22276 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:15 PM

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised.  While this game is important, it's an out of conference matchup.  Rest up for the Bengals.



#50 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4630 posts

Posted 28 September 2013 - 03:16 PM

You know what changed overnight? The Pats made an announcement that the two didn't travel. This is all bullshit. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users