Gronk: one-game suspension

Is Gronk Suspended?


  • Total voters
    239

grsharky7

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,243
Berlin, PA
Steeler fans in this area are irate about this, feels it should be two games minimum. You can actually feel the fear they have of the Pats at this point.

In all seriousness he does deserve the one game off. Bonus that he gets to rest up.
 

Time to Mo Vaughn

RIP Dernell
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
7,203
Small detail on this, if not already mentioned. This makes it very unlikely that Gronk can earn his $5.5 million incentive for this year without being first team All Pro -- and missing this game may hurt him there. He's very close to the $3 million incentive, but in the end this could well be a $2.5 million penalty.
He's currently 22 yards behind Kelce 871 vs 849. Ertz, Walker and Engram are way behind at 676, 663 and 569 yards respectively, so the one game shouldn't be enough for them to catch up.

Jimmy Graham is at 9 TDs (only 473 receiving yards), while Ertz, Kelce and Gronk are all tied at 7. While it definitely will hurt him, it's hard to say quite how much. Given how he's recognized by almost everyone in the league (except Yammer of course) as one of the top blocking TEs, if he's close to equal on stats that should put him over the top.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,273
AZ
Steeler fans in this area are irate about this, feels it should be two games minimum. You can actually feel the fear they have of the Pats at this point.
It's one aspect of suspensions -- especially in a 16 game season -- that is actually quite inequitable. The fact that it rarely helps the team against whom the infraction occurred but helps the next opponent. Buffalo and Miami are actually, at least theoretically, competing to try to get the last playoff spot in the east. It is totally unfair that Buffalo has a guy concussed and their division opponent gets an easier game against the Patriots. The most equitable thing would actually be to require Gronk to sit during the next Buffalo game, but it doesn't work that way. I think this in baseball all the time. Your guy gets plunked and then your rival doesn't have to face that pitcher because he gets suspended for the next game.

But the last team that should get any advantage here is Pittsburgh. They certainly have no right to it. And in truth, of course, they do get an advantage by having the team they are competing for in playoff seeding having to play a game a man down.
 
Last edited:

The Big Red Kahuna

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 14, 2003
3,564
Personally, I think what Gronk did is more like what AJ Green did than what Mike Evans did, and Green didn't get suspended at all. Not to mention, AJ Green, like Gronk, doesn't have any sort of history of this kind of behavior.
Curious why you think this was more akin to AJ Green situation vs Mike Evans? I thought the exact opposite. Green wrestled his guy to the ground, while the Gronk and Evans plays were much more violent/blindsiding.
 

The Big Red Kahuna

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 14, 2003
3,564
Sure, but I think it’s weak evidence to suggest he’s a dirty player, especially if it’s the best example someone has over a career of his length. I would hope the league office wouldn’t use it to consider someone a repeat offender.
Except he is, by virtue of the play cited, a repeat offender. By definition.
 

Sportsbstn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 8, 2004
8,794
Steeler fans in this area are irate about this, feels it should be two games minimum. You can actually feel the fear they have of the Pats at this point.

In all seriousness he does deserve the one game off. Bonus that he gets to rest up.
I’ll take no chance Gronk can get hurt before the Steelers game at worst case scenario. The patriots don’t need him to beat Miami anyway.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,503
One less non-playoff game to risk his getting injured.
His body gets some extra time off.
Both Gronk and his teammates gain extra personal motivation/inspiration to come out and kick some Steeler ass.

And, oh yeah, he learns a lesson and Justice, however frustrating, is done.

Overall...I'll take it.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I voted no initially, but the replay makes it clearer it's too blatant to ignore. ah well.

but please, media, stop burying the underlying issue under the rug - Gronk is being penalized for being too good.
Even the most Pats-friendly media outlet wouldn’t claim the “underlying issue” here is a lack of defensive holding calls. That ceased to matter when Gronk either gave a player a concussion by cheap-shotting him in the back of the head, or delivered a cheap shot to the head of an already-concussed player.

Gronk doesn’t deserve to be judged by the worst thing he ever did — he’s not Burfict or Suh. But Gronk is a bigger star than either of those guys. That’s the story here.

The officials seem to treat Burfict and Suh fairly enough, so I don’t think Gronk will suffer on the field even if he’s a pariah for a while, but it’s laughable to think he’s going to get better calls, as some folks here seem to expect.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
I’ll take no chance Gronk can get hurt before the Steelers game at worst case scenario. The patriots don’t need him to beat Miami anyway.
Suspension seems a fair result reflecting the seriousness of the incident - agree that it was a vicious, cheap hit on an already injured and defenseless player - but balanced by lack of precedent by Gronk. I saw the repeat offender argument above, but Gronk is not really that kind of player as he stated in his apology.

On a lighter note, (edit: with Gronk out vs Miami) maybe Brady will get to pass Vinny Testaverde in number of different TD pass receivers. He is currently 2 behind I think, having added Cooks, Allen and Burkhead this year (was at 65 end of last season). Dorsett and Develin are DUE.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,529
In the simulacrum
Upthread I said essentially what DDB is observing -- that in a just world it would be the Bills game that Gronk sits. Purely in terms of Pats self-interest this is hardly a hard punishment. I wonder if Gronk is simply appealing in the spirit of keeping up appearances.

Take the off week. Study up on the Pittsburgh Defensive book. It's called 'A Mockingbird to Remember.'
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
He's currently 22 yards behind Kelce 871 vs 849. Ertz, Walker and Engram are way behind at 676, 663 and 569 yards respectively, so the one game shouldn't be enough for them to catch up.

Jimmy Graham is at 9 TDs (only 473 receiving yards), while Ertz, Kelce and Gronk are all tied at 7. While it definitely will hurt him, it's hard to say quite how much. Given how he's recognized by almost everyone in the league (except Yammer of course) as one of the top blocking TEs, if he's close to equal on stats that should put him over the top.
Gronk was 1st-team all-pro for all 4 organizations (AP, PFW, PFF, SN) in 2011. He was also all-pro in 2012 (2), 2014 (3), and 2015 (4). Last year, Kelce got all 4 1st-team awards, and Greg Olsen both of the 2nd-team ones (AP and PFF); Olsen was 2nd-team in 2014 and 2015 as well (the latter shared with Delanie Walker). If those are the only names who have reputation that Gronk will need to fend off, then it certainly sounds like a 2-horse race between him and Kelce. And at the rate KC is going, unless they just tank the season and game plan to get him yards, Gronk probably has the edge even with a game off.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Except he is, by virtue of the play cited, a repeat offender. By definition.
They reset the clock after a certain amount of time, which I believe is less than the three years ago that game was. So I don’t believe he would be considered a repeat offender.
 

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
I've been thinking since this happened that you can draw a straight line between throwing Sergio out of the club and this incident. When Gronk gets enraged on the field, he wants to physically dominate someone. He expresses his frustration physically. In the case with Sergio it was over trash talk, there wasn't great video of the most egregious part of the play (minus the above still which made the rounds), and most importantly, Sergio didn't get hurt and there wasn't a head-injury element to the incident, although there easily could have been. And then there was the great quote after the game that cast the incident in a funny light rather than a predatory/malicious one. He was fined for the play, but everyone had a laugh.

Gronk saw red again on Sunday, and got overly physical in a stupid, frustrated way. He just lost control and wanted to hit someone, maybe even hurt someone. This time, the focus of his rage was already on the ground, and so the awkward body slam was probably the first thing he thought of.

Stupider result, same process.
In my book, the most egregious part of the play is actually Jonas Gray nutpunching #28 of the Colts right after he gets into the endzone.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Really glad this got dealt with before last night’s game. Won’t be surprised if Smith-Schuster’s hit on Burfict results in a sea change in how hits like this are punished.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
The Gronk suspension feels more than fair in light of the suspensions from last night's debacle. Clearly the NFL is approaching these hits differently than in the past, and that's a good thing on the whole, even if the Pats feel some pain this week.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,580
Portland, ME
I'm not sure if this is even worth posting, but apparently the whole 'hood wants payback for Gron. I would not be surprised to see some shots, illegal or not, taken at him in a couple weeks. If our seeding is wrapped up, wouldn't mind seeing Gronk getting a nice two week rest before the first playoff game.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm not sure if this is even worth posting, but apparently the whole 'hood wants payback for Gron. I would not be surprised to see some shots, illegal or not, taken at him in a couple weeks. If our seeding is wrapped up, wouldn't mind seeing Gronk getting a nice two week rest before the first playoff game.
That's not the Belichick way, but if Gronk plays that day there will be a lot of people in the game thread who will need to be breathing into brown paper bags for most of the game.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
It doesn't seem too smart to announce that before the game. Seems like Rex's stink is still on that team.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,090
That's not the Belichick way, but if Gronk plays that day there will be a lot of people in the game thread who will need to be breathing into brown paper bags for most of the game.
That’s basically how I watch every game with Gronk. The Bills are going to be so focused on Gronk that he’ll make a great decoy in a couple weeks. Cooks and Hogan will probably go nuts.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,017
Oregon
That’s basically how I watch every game with Gronk. The Bills are going to be so focused on Gronk that he’ll make a great decoy in a couple weeks. Cooks and Hogan will probably go nuts.
Which won't stop the Bills from trying to injure Gronk
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Someone in one of these threads— Morgan IIRC — said the Pats and Gronk were damn fortunate the suspension came as quickly as it did given later events this week. You can cube that now that the extent of Shazier’s injury is beginning to dribble out. He certainly is done for the year, and may be done for good.

A solid rule in life is controlling what you can. I don’t know how much that unfolded in the Monday night game can be averted through better training, improvements in equipment and so forth. Maybe none — people playing the game today are not the same species as those who played it even 20 years ago. But that only puts a premium on getting rid of the extracurricular and plainly avoidable bullshit.

I expect the penalty for hits similar to Gronks’ will be triple or quadruple what he received. I expect the League will make that clear on a going forward basis, so there will be no whining. I’m just as happy as I can be that Gronk did not set the precedent. We dodged a bullet.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,273
AZ
The problem is the precedent. You've basically established one game as the baseline and so how do you convince the arbitrators in appeals to do more? I think there will need to be some union involvement. Either that or the league will have to come out with some new findings or some new information that justifies higher suspensions. As I understand it, pretty much the entire argument on appeal relates to precedent. The league has to justify punishing a guy more than a prior guy was punished for the same incident. And unlike Deflategate or Bounty or Elliott, the two arbitrators who decide on field punishment appeals are not handpicked by the league and Goodell cannot sit himself. They are agreed upon by the NFLPA and they are not a rubber stamp. What is the league going to do now? It has suspended guys for one game for vicious hits. Are they going to say, "concussions are worse than we thought"? They can't. Not in the current litigation environment.

Probably what the league will do is try to issue longer suspensions and see if the arbitrators will reverse them. I bet they will. Unless there is NFLPA buy in, or unless they come up with some new schedule of penalties in the next CBA.

I actually could see them working something out with the NFLPA. One the one hand, the PA wants to protect players who get suspended from arbitrary punishments but on the other I'm sure many of their members want a safer league. But I think this will move forward slowly.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
Shannon Sharpe had a surprisingly logical rant about this the other day distinguishing Gronk's hit and the various recent fighting events from the Iloka and Smith-Shuster hits, being that the latter two were football plays and the others were not, calling for a relatively bright line of non football plays being two games minimum.

And he had a point.

The difference in the appeals of the Smith-Schuster and Iloka hits was also borderline farcical. The letter to Smith announcing the suspension referenced taunting more than once then the appeal denied that the taunting played any role at all, when the taunting was the only way that hit could have been called more egregious. Iloka has been fined for that sort of hit before but his appeal for a straight forehead to face type hit was successful, compared to the first offense for the rookie where the helmet to helmet was clear but it wasn't lined up centered. Not exactly what you'd call consistent.

Meh. More momentum to walk away from the game I guess
 
Last edited:

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,702
Wayland, MA
Shannon Sharpe had a surprisingly logical rant about this the other day distinguishing Gronk's hit and the various recent fighting events from the Iloka and Smith-Shuster hits, being that the latter two were football plays and the others were not, calling for a relatively bright line of non football plays being two games minimum.
Sorry, but I think this kind of misses the point.

I would be OK if someone got 2 games in the future doing what Gronk did vs 1 game for an Iloka-type hit. And that’s because it was premeditated, Gronk clearly was trying to hurt the guy, and the other guy was in a vulnerable position and unprepared.

That’s it. Give me that same set of circumstances before the whistle blows ending play and I would advocate for the same punishment.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Sorry, but I think this kind of misses the point.

I would be OK if someone got 2 games in the future doing what Gronk did vs 1 game for an Iloka-type hit. And that’s because it was premeditated, Gronk clearly was trying to hurt the guy, and the other guy was in a vulnerable position and unprepared.

That’s it. Give me that same set of circumstances before the whistle blows ending play and I would advocate for the same punishment.
The play that got OBJ suspended a couple years ago would fit the criteria you outline - the play was still going on, technically, but away from the play he got a full-sprint head of steam and launched himself head-first into Josh Norman's head.

(FWIW, OBJ got one game, same as Gronk. I think both actions could have gotten more, but one game seems to be the precedent at this time)
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Shannon Sharpe had a surprisingly logical rant about this the other day distinguishing Gronk's hit and the various recent fighting events from the Iloka and Smith-Shuster hits, being that the latter two were football plays and the others were not, calling for a relatively bright line of non football plays being two games minimum.

And he had a point.

The difference in the appeals of the Smith-Schuster and Iloka hits was also borderline farcical. The letter to Smith announcing the suspension referenced taunting more than once then the appeal denied that the taunting played any role at all, when the taunting was the only way that hit could have been called more egregious. Iloka has been fined for that sort of hit before but his appeal for a straight forehead to face type hit was successful, compared to the first offense for the rookie where the helmet to helmet was clear but it wasn't lined up centered. Not exactly what you'd call consistent.

Meh. More momentum to walk away from the game I guess
1. I can't disagree with Sharpe, but did he say this after the Evans-Lattimore hit, or only now? I think those hits are pretty close, Gronk's hit was a little worse but the play was more clearly over in Evans's hit.

2. I'd be fine with two games, but it's not as if a $200,000 + fine is nothing.

3. The SS hit was an illegal hit that also targeted the head, correct? The Iloka hit would have been a legal hit but Brown's head sort of moved into the hit. That's how they looked to me. Not to say that the process and explanation of the process wasn't, as you say, farcical.

4. It may be obnoxious to say but wasn't Shazier's hit at least fineable for leading with the crown of his helmet?
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
Sharpe said it in the window this week when the Schuster and Iloka suspensions were announced but before their appeals were heard. Some level of consistency would go a long way, even in MLB the length of ejections is pretty well known for various infractions, and some aspects are formalized (manager ejection alongside pitcher after warning issued). The dartboard or "what is Twitter saying?" style of discipline that is in place now is just confounding.

Nomario's OBJ is an example of where the line would get a little fuzzy even in a football play=1 game/non-football=2 games type environment, but setting a line like that would help IMHO. Hell aren't there standards in hockey and such for penalties like second man into a scrum or something?

Yeah to be fair people have been commenting that Shazier goes in head down on tackles in the past and have been concerned, but I haven't seen the asshole big enough to say I told you so yet. Just hope he can recover.

This is veering off topic but IMHO Schuster was moving his head to the left and hit with his right shoulder at the same time as the right side of his face hit Burfict's chin. Very much looked like he turned his head aside but didn't get clear. Iloka's was pretty lined up face to face but I couldn't say if there was a ducking into it component. Honestly I watched the Schuster hit a lot on Tuesday but have gotten kinda sickened by the video replays from that game and don't want to re watch any of it anymore.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,767
Hartford, CT
The focus on the Gronk play at the neglect of the Evans play is either opportunistic on the part of fans and media members, or borne of ignorance of the Evans play altogether because - like Rodgers' admitted overinflation of footballs - no one gave a shit at the time. Those saying the Gronk suspension was light could, however, easily say that Evans should've been suspended multiple games as well.
 

KiltedFool

has a terminal case of creeping sharia
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,400
The focus on the Gronk play at the neglect of the Evans play is either opportunistic on the part of fans and media members, or borne of ignorance of the Evans play altogether because - like Rodgers' admitted overinflation of footballs - no one gave a shit at the time. Those saying the Gronk suspension was light could, however, easily say that Evans should've been suspended multiple games as well.
I wasn't familiar with the Evans Lattimore hit until a few minutes ago. It's got a lot of similarities to the Gronk play, so I'd aim for their suspensions to be similar absent other factors (repeat offenders, taunting etc). They should start at the same starting point then use mitigating or aggravating factors from there.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667

BuellMiller

New Member
Mar 25, 2015
449
http://www.weei.com/blogs/alex-reimer/bills-cb-tredavious-white-reportedly-says-whole-hood-after-rob-gronkowski

Ryan Clark saying earlier in the week that White says the "whole hood" will be after Gronk and Clark opining the Bills should have immediately retaliated for the dirty hit.

Of course, everyone's a hypocrite when it comes to this stuff-


(To me that's egregious enough to rank in the top fifty of Steelers cheap and dangerous hits, even including James Harrison).
Not to mention the one he did on Welker in 2008.