2018 Gronk Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
30,153
Hartford, CT
I guess the plan was to use the Lions and Rams picks+ to trade up for Baker Mayfield.
Based on past similar deals, wouldn't have been remotely enough, assuming the Browns ever considered trading out of that pick. Unless you're saying they'd trade like four first rounders?

I'm skeptical to begin with the Pats would ever trade the kind of pick bounty that it would've taken to get to #1 when the team sitting at #1 liked a top-flight QB prospect at the spot and didn't have a long-term solution at the position. Why would CLE trade out of that spot for anything but a ridiculous package, and why would the Pats offer it? From the Pats perspective, as much as they may have liked Mayfield (and do we really know they "loved" him because they met with him?), that kind of trade would nonetheless leave them still putting a lot of chips into a guy who hasn't played a single NFL snap and likely won't help you for several years. That's a pretty risky bet for a contender who - like every other team - needs help at several positions over the next 1-3 years.

I think it's more simple than that: the Pats were ready to move on from Gronk due to durability/contract demands/whatever and got a package they liked in and of itself, regardless of whether it would have secured them enough assets to get Baker Mayfield. And there's no evidence they had a preliminary agreement with the Browns contingent on securing the Detroit first rounder, or that the Browns even entertained such a deal.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,305
My recollection is they were eying the #2 pick for Mayfield. I don’t recall a story that they were willing to go to 1/1 ... if a team is sold on a QB at that spot, the pick is untouchable at anything but the most extreme cost.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,182
deep inside Guido territory
Almost traded to unnamed team versus, apparently, deal agreed to with specific team before Gronk threatened retirement.
Schefter says it was nearly agreed to and that the Pats were still talking to a few other teams. It's essentially the same report as Mike Giardi and Tom Curran had back in April. Adam is making it seem that this is a new revelation that Gronk was almost traded which of course we all know it isn't.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,305
Well it’s timely because they are playing the Lions tonight, and I don’t recall any specific trade partner mentioned before Schefter’s report.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
30,153
Hartford, CT
Well it’s timely because they are playing the Lions tonight, and I don’t recall any specific trade partner mentioned before Schefter’s report.
Right. If he or someone else like Giardi named specific teams before, then I admittedly missed it.

I find the identity of the team/regime of some interest because it suggests that Gronk wasn't interested in playing on another team and/or starting over, period. Most players, especially offensive players, wouldn't be crushed to be traded to a team with Matthew Stafford at QB and get a pay raise, and certainly not to the extent that they'd threaten retirement. That's a pretty unusual move.

We can infer from the specifics and tone of the report that Gronk wants to be a Patriot or not play football anymore. It's possible he'd accept a trade to some other team, but I don't get the sense reading this that something about Detroit in particular inspired him to threaten retirement. If he wanted to go to a different team, presumably he would've broached that topic rather than threaten retirement/try to work it out with the Patriots.

Why he wanted to be here, period, is difficult to nail down. Maybe he didn't want to deal with the unknown of a new team/staff, maybe he didn't want to risk playing for a team that might not contend (again, the worst place a Pats team has finished in his time here is 14-2 with a loss in the divisional round), maybe any pay raise he got wouldn't be worth it net/net, maybe he knows playing with/for BB, Tom and McDaniels - which will help him punch his HOF ticket - is something he can't replicate elsewhere, etc. But it certainly punches a hole in the argument that Gronk finds playing for the Patriots intolerable; apparently not.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,559
For those that missed it, Gronk affirmed tonight that he said he'd retire if traded.

Gronkowski confirmed Sunday night he did indeed shut down an attempt by the New England Patriots to ship him to Detroit this past offseason, saying he’d rather hang up his cleats than catch passes from anyone other than Tom Brady. “Yeah, it happened,” Gronkowski said after the Patriots’ 26-10 loss to the Lions at Ford Field. “Brady’s my quarterback. That’s all. I wasn’t going anywhere without Brady.”
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,287
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
Gronk was evaluating his return to football at all. Then posted that statement on April 24th where he confirmed he was returning to the Pats for 2018. So the trade talk would have been before that statement? If it was, then what could you expect to get for a guy that wasn't committed. Unless they had a trade agreed to and it was contingent on Matty P confirming that Gronk would show up and play, and when that contingency was explored, Gronk shut it down. I guess that is how it must have gone down. But I'm open to clarity on this, seems a bit odd.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,284
Gronk was evaluating his return to football at all. Then posted that statement on April 24th where he confirmed he was returning to the Pats for 2018. So the trade talk would have been before that statement? If it was, then what could you expect to get for a guy that wasn't committed. Unless they had a trade agreed to and it was contingent on Matty P confirming that Gronk would show up and play, and when that contingency was explored, Gronk shut it down. I guess that is how it must have gone down. But I'm open to clarity on this, seems a bit odd.
It may have been as simple as Gronk had never seriously considered the possibility of being traded while he was mulling over whether he would return to play football. Pats and Lions start discussing contingencies around a trade, and the Pats then contact Gronk's agent to find out more about Gronk's plans. Gronk gets wind that he could be traded, and then, as you noted, he shuts it down by declaring his intention to play provided the Pats are willing to give him some additional coin in his contract.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,287
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
It may have been as simple as Gronk had never seriously considered the possibility of being traded while he was mulling over whether he would return to play football. Pats and Lions start discussing contingencies around a trade, and the Pats then contact Gronk's agent to find out more about Gronk's plans. Gronk gets wind that he could be traded, and then, as you noted, he shuts it down by declaring his intention to play provided the Pats are willing to give him some additional coin in his contract.
That makes sense. Just seems a bit odd that the trade was that developed not sure if Gronk would play at all. Unless there was some internal issue (guessing money) that made BB think he'd play somewhere else without issue. So maybe that is it, we'll trade you to the Lions and they are ready to back up the Brinks truck, and he shut that down.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,254
Perhaps Hoolister being well rested will help make up a fraction of the production we won't have BECAUSE ON A SHORT WEEK GRONK SHOULD DEFINITELY SIT.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
3,242
I think it really depends on the severity of the injury... It's also quite possible it wasn't too bad of an injury/tweak but because of the lopsided score they just left him in the locker room. (Wishful thinking I know)
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,544
I think it really depends on the severity of the injury... It's also quite possible it wasn't too bad of an injury/tweak but because of the lopsided score they just left him in the locker room. (Wishful thinking I know)
This. We have little to no information to make a judgment about whether he should play or not.
 

BusRaker

lurker
Aug 11, 2006
456
This. We have little to no information to make a judgment about whether he should play or not.
The only guarantee is that BB will have him "Limited" on the practice reports and "Questionable" heading into the game whether he's fine or not going to play.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,182
deep inside Guido territory
This. We have little to no information to make a judgment about whether he should play or not.
The thing I'm going on to say that I am not confident he will play is the short week. It looks like he's dealing with an ankle sprain. If he had a full week of treatment my guess is that he'd play. With the game on Thursday, the long-term smart play is to give him a full 2 weeks to get ready for a huge game with Kansas City.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,284
The thing I'm going on to say that I am not confident he will play is the short week. It looks like he's dealing with an ankle sprain. If he had a full week of treatment my guess is that he'd play. With the game on Thursday, the long-term smart play is to give him a full 2 weeks to get ready for a huge game with Kansas City.
+1. The Pats are usually conservative with regards to injured players in a short week.

I'm less concerned that the ankle injury is anything serious; he was seen in the locker room by the media after the game, and noone reported anything troubling. I'm more concerned that this injury could be of the nagging variety that limits his effectiveness for a while. So I really wouldn't be upset if the team decided to give him a bye week at this point.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
2,544
Just to be clear, I'm not saying Gronk should play or that I'd be upset if he didn't. Just stating that we don't have any information. If rest will help then yes I'd prerer he sit. But if not, I'd prefer he play. There are no automatic wins
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,516
Here
Without knowing the specifics, Gronk was in a similar situation with a minor groin injury and they sat him for a Thursday game against Tampa last year that they barely won. I’d expect them to throw Gronk in bubblewrap until the KC game.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
59,332
Oregon
i saw the locker room celebration video from pats.com. He was in there at that time and it looked like he was walking just fine. For whatever that's worth
video here
Can't tell much from that though. Heck, Swihart looked like just a sprain after he hit the wall and came off the field
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,062
Without knowing the specifics, Gronk was in a similar situation with a minor groin injury and they sat him for a Thursday game against Tampa last year that they barely won. I’d expect them to throw Gronk in bubblewrap until the KC game.
Probably important to keep in mind that Gronk has $4.3M in incentives this year:

$1.1M for 70 catches (currently has 17)
$1.1M for 1,085 yards (currently has 233)
$1.1M for 80% playing time (no idea on current)
$1.1M for 9 TDs (currently has 1)

He has some real incentive to go out there and "suck it up" if it's not SB46 level debilitating. My guess is that he sits out but wouldn't be surprised if he tries to give it a go. Of course, going out there and hurting himself even more could have an even worse impact on reaching the incentives than sitting out 1 game so we'll just have to see.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,284
Probably important to keep in mind that Gronk has $4.3M in incentives this year:

$1.1M for 70 catches (currently has 17)
$1.1M for 1,085 yards (currently has 233)
$1.1M for 80% playing time (no idea on current)
$1.1M for 9 TDs (currently has 1)

He has some real incentive to go out there and "suck it up" if it's not SB46 level debilitating. My guess is that he sits out but wouldn't be surprised if he tries to give it a go. Of course, going out there and hurting himself even more could have an even worse impact on reaching the incentives than sitting out 1 game so we'll just have to see.
The bonus amount is capped at $3.3M, so he will earn the max by meeting 3 of those 4 targets.

He has played in 88.6% of snaps so far this year.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,305
Per ESPN crawl, Schefter reports injury not serious, Gronk questionable for Thursday.
 

axx

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
6,091
Currently projected to get 69 catches (nice) and 1080 yards. That's oddly close to the incentive target.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,226
Currently projected to get 69 catches (nice) and 1080 yards. That's oddly close to the incentive target.
It really doesn't feel like Gronk is producing like he normally does.

Career numbers:
- 4.6 receptions per game
- 70.2 yards per game
- 15.2 yards per reception

2018 numbers:
- 4.3 receptions per game
- 67.5 yards per game
- 15.6 yards per reception

So yeah, I guess he's basically right on his usual numbers. The only thing he's way down in is touchdowns, where he's averaged 0.71 TD per game and a TD every 0.15 receptions. This year it's 0.16 TD per game and a TD every 0.04 receptions. To be at his career normal pace he'd need to have 4 TD at this point in the season instead of just 1.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Sep 27, 2016
7,496
The only thing he's way down in is touchdowns, where he's averaged 0.71 TD per game and a TD every 0.15 receptions. This year it's 0.16 TD per game and a TD every 0.04 receptions.
Pretty hard to keep up an average of getting 25 TDs per reception. :D
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,226
Shrug

2. Despite catches of 42 and 39 yards in the fourth quarter, Gronkowski doesn’t look quite right. The Chiefs saw on tape a player who wasn’t running all that well, and noticed that the Patriots were using play-action to help Gronk generate separation. Through 56 minutes they held him to a single 16-yard catch. New England got him free off play-action for the 42-yarder, and he beat his guy on the 39-yarder. But all this merits watching going forward.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,820
Palo Alto
Shrug

2. Despite catches of 42 and 39 yards in the fourth quarter, Gronkowski doesn’t look quite right. The Chiefs saw on tape a player who wasn’t running all that well, and noticed that the Patriots were using play-action to help Gronk generate separation. Through 56 minutes they held him to a single 16-yard catch. New England got him free off play-action for the 42-yarder, and he beat his guy on the 39-yarder. But all this merits watching going forward.
This is not a parody?
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
33,899
Does Peter King not realize play action is used to facilitate A LOT of Gronk's offense? Not all, but a lot.

And he's so banged up he played all but 1 offensive play last night. GTFO here with this.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,226
Dunno. Don't care really, I watch almost no NFL these days, but in my morning reading I ran across the comment and dropped it in the thread.

And I know hating Peter King is a SoSH tradition. That was Albert Breer.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,170
Did they happen to mention how many times Gronk was held back in pass protection, as opposed to running routes yesterday?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.