Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

32 Counter Pass

Gronk's value

50 posts in this topic

Looking for the community's input regarding Gronk's value in a a ppr 1.5 format. Here are the offers I have received with my comments:

Offer1

give Gronk/J. Gordon

get AJGreen/Celek

While I love Green I do not like Celek's prospects. I also like Gordon's upside based on the small sample size.

Offer2

give Gronk

get Fitz, Pitta, 2014 second round pick

I hate Fitz's situation. The QB and line play is so bad the Cards have made Fitz a non factor.

I am considering extending this offer:

give Gronk

get 1.01, Cruz, Keller

Too much? Not enough?

All feedback welcomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for the community's input regarding Gronk's value in a a ppr 1.5 format. Here are the offers I have received with my comments:

Offer1

give Gronk/J. Gordon

get AJGreen/Celek

While I love Green I do not like Celek's prospects. I also like Gordon's upside based on the small sample size.

Offer2

give Gronk

get Fitz, Pitta, 2014 second round pick

I hate Fitz's situation. The QB and line play is so bad the Cards have made Fitz a non factor.

I am considering extending this offer:

give Gronk

get 1.01, Cruz, Keller

Too much? Not enough?

All feedback welcomed.

You have not been offered enough for him.

Is this a 1.5 PPR league for everyone or just TE's? If it's just TE's I'd put Gronk in top 5 and I would not consider you asking for 1.1, Cruz and Keller as asking to much. If it's 1.5 for everyone and not just TE's that bumps up Cruz's value and and lowers Gronks value to more of a borderline top 10 guy instead of top 5 guy. That makes asking for that package a bit aggressive but I would not consider it insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronk is young and along with Graham are among the few elite TEs in FF. I own him in 2 PPR leagues (just 1 point) but I consider him almost untouchable because I would never be able to match his production at that position (unless I traded for Graham). He could be gold in your league for the next 8-10 years, I would be very, hesitant to consider moving him if I were you.If you must do a trade, you have to get an young elite player in return. Green would fit that bill, however you are not going to come close to replacing Gronk's production with Celek. And I would never in a hundred years throw in a player with upside like Gordon.While a straight up trade of Gronk for Green makes sense, I wouldn't do it unless lot more was thrown in. Just my opinionMy advice is to hold him.And I wouldn't even think twice about getting the 1.01, Cruz and Keller. Cruz is close to elite but a tier below. The 1.01 is not a guarantee of getting a stud player - for every Richardson there is an Ingram (among top pick disappointments).That deal looks good a glance, but I would pass.Good luck in whatever decision you make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are horrible offers man. Sit on top 15 overall dynasty talent unless someone backs up the Brinks truck. Gronk is probably even top 10 with the 1.5 TE factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1.5 PPR TE leagues, particularly where you must start at least 1 TE (such as the FFPC), Gronk is arguably the #1 overall player with a great combination of dominant production, youth and position. That said, Gronk is #5 on my board and Green at #3, so I probably would personally do a straight up trade of Gronk for Green if I had a TE on whom I could rely in place of Gronk. If this is the FFPC, Gronk is valued by most over AJ Green. Accordingly, I'd press for AJ Green + 2nd rounder (current or future) for Gronk and take out Gordon/Celek from the deal. The rest of the options for Gronk above I would not consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are horrible offers man. Sit on top 15 overall dynasty talent unless someone backs up the Brinks truck. Gronk is probably even top 10 with the 1.5 TE factor.

You only rank Gronk in the top 15 or "probably even top 10" in 1.5 TE PPR, and you think the Green offer is "horrible" as well? Do you not also rank Green in the top 10 or at least in the top 15 (matching your general description of Gronk)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are horrible offers man. Sit on top 15 overall dynasty talent unless someone backs up the Brinks truck. Gronk is probably even top 10 with the 1.5 TE factor.

You only rank Gronk in the top 15 or "probably even top 10" in 1.5 TE PPR, and you think the Green offer is "horrible" as well? Do you not also rank Green in the top 10 or at least in the top 15 (matching your general description of Gronk)?
I would not trade Gronk straight up for Green in that format, so Gronk and Gordon (whom I think could have a decent future as a WR4/flex player would make no sense to me. Celek is waiver wire material in most leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are horrible offers man. Sit on top 15 overall dynasty talent unless someone backs up the Brinks truck. Gronk is probably even top 10 with the 1.5 TE factor.

You only rank Gronk in the top 15 or "probably even top 10" in 1.5 TE PPR, and you think the Green offer is "horrible" as well? Do you not also rank Green in the top 10 or at least in the top 15 (matching your general description of Gronk)?
I would not trade Gronk straight up for Green in that format, so Gronk and Gordon (whom I think could have a decent future as a WR4/flex player would make no sense to me. Celek is waiver wire material in most leagues.
Ok, I understand not wanting to trade Gronk for Green. I was just surprised by your classification of the offer as "horrible" given that you only viewed Gronk as a maybe/probably top 10 talent (when Green himself is top 10 as well). As for Celek and Gordon, I prefer Gordon as well, but Celek has decent value in a 1.5 TE PPR league (particularly if you must start at least 1 TE) and is by no means waiver wire material. Still, I would remove Celek/Gordon from the equation and see what else could be extracted along with Green (if Green is enticing to 32 Counter). I do agree though that you should not trade Gronk without someone backing up the truck (although I would say the same for AJ Green as well). If you're considering trading Gronk for non-top 10 types like Fitz/Pitta/Cruz, you'd need a lot more in the offer. In an FFPC league, I acquired Gronk in the fall right before the trade deadline (and right before his forearm snapped) for Matt Ryan (whom I like over Cruz and rank in the top 25), Vernon Davis (whose value was down but not as down as it got later in the year) and 3 2013 1st rounders (one a surefire top 3 and the other two likely in the 1.7-1.9 range). It would take something of that magnitude for me to consider trading Gronk if a top 10 player (like Green) were not involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are horrible offers man. Sit on top 15 overall dynasty talent unless someone backs up the Brinks truck. Gronk is probably even top 10 with the 1.5 TE factor.

You only rank Gronk in the top 15 or "probably even top 10" in 1.5 TE PPR, and you think the Green offer is "horrible" as well? Do you not also rank Green in the top 10 or at least in the top 15 (matching your general description of Gronk)?
I would not trade Gronk straight up for Green in that format, so Gronk and Gordon (whom I think could have a decent future as a WR4/flex player would make no sense to me. Celek is waiver wire material in most leagues.
Ok, I understand not wanting to trade Gronk for Green. I was just surprised by your classification of the offer as "horrible" given that you only viewed Gronk as a maybe/probably top 10 talent (when Green himself is top 10 as well). As for Celek and Gordon, I prefer Gordon as well, but Celek has decent value in a 1.5 TE PPR league (particularly if you must start at least 1 TE) and is by no means waiver wire material. Still, I would remove Celek/Gordon from the equation and see what else could be extracted along with Green (if Green is enticing to 32 Counter). I do agree though that you should not trade Gronk without someone backing up the truck (although I would say the same for AJ Green as well). If you're considering trading Gronk for non-top 10 types like Fitz/Pitta/Cruz, you'd need a lot more in the offer. In an FFPC league, I acquired Gronk in the fall right before the trade deadline (and right before his forearm snapped) for Matt Ryan (whom I like over Cruz and rank in the top 25), Vernon Davis (whose value was down but not as down as it got later in the year) and 3 2013 1st rounders (one a surefire top 3 and the other two likely in the 1.7-1.9 range). It would take something of that magnitude for me to consider trading Gronk if a top 10 player (like Green) were not involved.
Thanks. This is exactly the kind of info I was hoping to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot fathom trading Gronk/Graham in a 1.5 PPR TE league, barring an absolutely astounding overpayment on the part of the other owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're anxious to move Gronk, your best bet is to hit up the Hernandez owner. Gronk for Hernandez + young RB2/WR2 might be reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're anxious to move Gronk, your best bet is to hit up the Hernandez owner. Gronk for Hernandez + young RB2/WR2 might be reasonable.

Not anxious, just getting a pulse of of his current value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Can you enlighten as to Gronk's "history of injuries". A quick check of his career shows he played 16 games in each of his first two seasons. He missed 5 games last year due to a fluke injury on a PAT. Despite missing 5 games Gronk finished as TE5, so that would be his floor. The same might be said for AJ but he does not have similar talent at QB. The previous season when Gronk set all the records he scored 375 fantasy points. Only CalJo in the same year came close that the figure. So I think the value is just about right for Gronk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Can you enlighten as to Gronk's "history of injuries". A quick check of his career shows he played 16 games in each of his first two seasons. He missed 5 games last year due to a fluke injury on a PAT. Despite missing 5 games Gronk finished as TE5, so that would be his floor. The same might be said for AJ but he does not have similar talent at QB. The previous season when Gronk set all the records he scored 375 fantasy points. Only CalJo in the same year came close that the figure. So I think the value is just about right for Gronk.
Exactly and I don't understand how a player can be labeled "injury prone" because of a broken forearm (or any broken bone). He missed his last year of college IIRC but his pro career since then has hardly been a "history of injuries".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Can you enlighten as to Gronk's "history of injuries". A quick check of his career shows he played 16 games in each of his first two seasons. He missed 5 games last year due to a fluke injury on a PAT. Despite missing 5 games Gronk finished as TE5, so that would be his floor. The same might be said for AJ but he does not have similar talent at QB. The previous season when Gronk set all the records he scored 375 fantasy points. Only CalJo in the same year came close that the figure. So I think the value is just about right for Gronk.
Exactly and I don't understand how a player can be labeled "injury prone" because of a broken forearm (or any broken bone). He missed his last year of college IIRC but his pro career since then has hardly been a "history of injuries".
are you forgetting about the ankle last year and most of the offseason leading up to 2012 season? and he broke another bone 3 weeks ago. he missed his some or all of hissenior season (I'm not 100% sure) and I think a portion of his sophmore season as well.

gronk ppg last season was around 20.5 and aj green was 19.11. that is with TEs gettting 1.5 ppr as well. so I don't see how the gap is that big that some of you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Can you enlighten as to Gronk's "history of injuries". A quick check of his career shows he played 16 games in each of his first two seasons. He missed 5 games last year due to a fluke injury on a PAT. Despite missing 5 games Gronk finished as TE5, so that would be his floor. The same might be said for AJ but he does not have similar talent at QB. The previous season when Gronk set all the records he scored 375 fantasy points. Only CalJo in the same year came close that the figure. So I think the value is just about right for Gronk.
Exactly and I don't understand how a player can be labeled "injury prone" because of a broken forearm (or any broken bone). He missed his last year of college IIRC but his pro career since then has hardly been a "history of injuries".
are you forgetting about the ankle last year and most of the offseason leading up to 2012 season? and he broke another bone 3 weeks ago. he missed his some or all of hissenior season (I'm not 100% sure) and I think a portion of his sophmore season as well.

gronk ppg last season was around 20.5 and aj green was 19.11. that is with TEs gettting 1.5 ppr as well. so I don't see how the gap is that big that some of you think.

So having a broken bone means a player is injury prone? Is that what you are saying? They rushed him back too soon from his forearm break and that was the reason for the subsequent break - he was not given sufficient time to heal. I have never seen any stats showing a correlation between breaking bones as an indicator that a player is injury prone, if you can provide a link it would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like gronk a lot and own him in a 1.5 ppr TE league. I think people are overvaluing him a bit though. He has had a history or injuries dating back to college. and they are starting to pile up now. AJ green is a top2 dynasty wr, so that isn't a "horrible" offer. I'd probably want a little more, but there isn't that much of a difference between AJ and gronk.

Can you enlighten as to Gronk's "history of injuries". A quick check of his career shows he played 16 games in each of his first two seasons. He missed 5 games last year due to a fluke injury on a PAT. Despite missing 5 games Gronk finished as TE5, so that would be his floor. The same might be said for AJ but he does not have similar talent at QB. The previous season when Gronk set all the records he scored 375 fantasy points. Only CalJo in the same year came close that the figure. So I think the value is just about right for Gronk.
Exactly and I don't understand how a player can be labeled "injury prone" because of a broken forearm (or any broken bone). He missed his last year of college IIRC but his pro career since then has hardly been a "history of injuries".
are you forgetting about the ankle last year and most of the offseason leading up to 2012 season? and he broke another bone 3 weeks ago. he missed his some or all of hissenior season (I'm not 100% sure) and I think a portion of his sophmore season as well.

gronk ppg last season was around 20.5 and aj green was 19.11. that is with TEs gettting 1.5 ppr as well. so I don't see how the gap is that big that some of you think.

So having a broken bone means a player is injury prone? Is that what you are saying? They rushed him back too soon from his forearm break and that was the reason for the subsequent break - he was not given sufficient time to heal. I have never seen any stats showing a correlation between breaking bones as an indicator that a player is injury prone, if you can provide a link it would be appreciated.
I never labeled him "injury prone" I simply stated that he has had injuries and they are starting to accumulate. I like your diagnosis of them rushing him back btw, when the doctors who examined him said the other bone was healed. he just took a bad fall a few weeks back and broke another bone. he missed his senior season due to back issues, and he missed 2-3 games his sophmore year of college for some other reasons. I am simply stating he hasn't been without some concerns, so expecting someone to pay AJ green and the 1.1 pick or AJ green and stafford for gronk is overboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gronk ppg last season was around 20.5 and aj green was 19.11. that is with TEs gettting 1.5 ppr as well. so I don't see how the gap is that big that some of you think.

You are correct on some of Gronks injury history but I show AJ at 18.86 points last year and Gronk at 20.68. In and of itself not a huge deal but where the real separation comes is their scoring relative to their position.AJ Green was WR#4. Here is the FPG difference between the him and the following WR positions:10. 16.84 (2.02)15. 16.15 (2.81)20. 13.96 (4.9)24. 13.67 (5.19)36. 12.23 (6.63)Gronk was the #1 TE at 20.68.2. 18.64 (2.04)5. 15.8 (4.88)10. 12.52(8.16)15. 10.95 (9.73)20. 10.5 (10.18)24. 9.10 ( 11.58)Keeping in mind Gronks numbers were down from 2011 and you still see a bigger gap between Gronk and TE10 than AJ Green and WR36. The gap between Gronk and TE5 is almost the same as the gap between AJ and WR #20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this discussion pertains to Gronks value and injury history I'd add the following commentary.If you own Gronk and are considering trading him and find people are using his injury history against him simply don't trade him now. Hold him. Hold him and when he returns healthy no one is going to care about an ankle from 2011 or a forearm from the previous year. Hold him and hope Welker and his 170+ a year targets leave and his role actually grows.That's what I'm doing. I own both him and Hernandez in a 1.5 TE PPR league where I'm desperate for a RB. I shopped them both and got at best one credible offer in return. I decided to just stop shopping them for the reasons I stated above. Barring a freak off the field incident/injury all these two can do is get healthier and their roles can only grow if Welker is gone but remain strong even if he returns. So unless someone knocks your socks off I'd hold and let their value creep up, possibly creep up a lot dependent on Welker situation and what they do if anything to replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this discussion pertains to Gronks value and injury history I'd add the following commentary.If you own Gronk and are considering trading him and find people are using his injury history against him simply don't trade him now. Hold him. Hold him and when he returns healthy no one is going to care about an ankle from 2011 or a forearm from the previous year. Hold him and hope Welker and his 170+ a year targets leave and his role actually grows.That's what I'm doing. I own both him and Hernandez in a 1.5 TE PPR league where I'm desperate for a RB. I shopped them both and got at best one credible offer in return. I decided to just stop shopping them for the reasons I stated above. Barring a freak off the field incident/injury all these two can do is get healthier and their roles can only grow if Welker is gone but remain strong even if he returns. So unless someone knocks your socks off I'd hold and let their value creep up, possibly creep up a lot dependent on Welker situation and what they do if anything to replace him.

I would agree that trading him now would be silly if someone mentions the word injury, or ever really. He broke his arm on a freak play, it happens. However, I don't agree that if Welker leaves will help him much, if at all. Welker is a super important part of then keeping those chains moving. More plays equals more opportunity, especially for Gronk who is a total TD whore. Also if Welker is gone, I can see more coverage roll to Gronk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and if you don't think Gronks most recent broken bone is related to the first one, you are simply wrong. He may not have broken the bone in the exact same spot, but that does nto mean the previous break (and them rushing him back) was not at all at fault in contributing to the 2nd break. Bottom line, Gronks value is and should be NO DIFFERENT than if he stayed healthy and scored his 20 a game all year. If you are trading him, trading him for less than that value is a mistake on your part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I don't agree that if Welker leaves will help him much, if at all. Welker is a super important part of then keeping those chains moving. More plays equals more opportunity, especially for Gronk who is a total TD whore. Also if Welker is gone, I can see more coverage roll to Gronk.

I would really disagree with this a great deal. You can't tell me that if a guy getting around 11 targets a game leaves it's not going to lead to more targets. Gronk is already the focal point of the the opposing defenses so I can't see them rolling more coverage their way, especially if the Pats add a true deep threat. As for moving the chains the Pats constantly find guys like Woodhead, Edelman, who can do those kinds of roles and probably not drop as many passes as Welker has lately. Also keep in mind Gronk's career target high for a season is 7.75 targets a game, even during his monster year in 2011 Hernandez got more targets per game and a guy like Jimmy Graham got 20 more targets than Gronk over the season. I think he's still got room to grow in this department.I'd also say I think you overstate Welker's importance. I think everyone is forgetting he was already getting phased out of this offense early in the season. Julian Edelman got more offensive snaps than Welker in week 1, week 2, and was leading him in snaps at halftime of week 3 before injuring his hand. Basically it took Edelman and Hernandez's injury to get Welkers snap count and role back up to what it was the previous seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I don't agree that if Welker leaves will help him much, if at all. Welker is a super important part of then keeping those chains moving. More plays equals more opportunity, especially for Gronk who is a total TD whore. Also if Welker is gone, I can see more coverage roll to Gronk.

I would really disagree with this a great deal. You can't tell me that if a guy getting around 11 targets a game leaves it's not going to lead to more targets. Gronk is already the focal point of the the opposing defenses so I can't see them rolling more coverage their way, especially if the Pats add a true deep threat. As for moving the chains the Pats constantly find guys like Woodhead, Edelman, who can do those kinds of roles and probably not drop as many passes as Welker has lately. Also keep in mind Gronk's career target high for a season is 7.75 targets a game, even during his monster year in 2011 Hernandez got more targets per game and a guy like Jimmy Graham got 20 more targets than Gronk over the season. I think he's still got room to grow in this department.I'd also say I think you overstate Welker's importance. I think everyone is forgetting he was already getting phased out of this offense early in the season. Julian Edelman got more offensive snaps than Welker in week 1, week 2, and was leading him in snaps at halftime of week 3 before injuring his hand. Basically it took Edelman and Hernandez's injury to get Welkers snap count and role back up to what it was the previous seasons.
And I think you are putting WAYYYYY too much emphasis on what Welker did in weeks 1 and 2. I am pretty sure the previous several years and following 14 games are more of a realistic view of his role in the offense than the first 2 games of a season. Phased out??? PleaseWithout Welker, sure I can see a few more targets, maybe even a few more catches. I also see less YAC, and less TDs with even MORE attention in the redzone.Now, when you mention them adding some other good WR, well then that is different. Depending who they add, it COULD help him out. I am just talking about if they got rid of Welker and didn't replace him with anyone special

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure the previous several years and following 14 games are more of a realistic view of his role in the offense than the first 2 games of a season. Phased out??? Please

Not to turn this into a Welker thread but that's not really an opinion, it happened. Only thing we don't and won't know is if Hernandez and to a lesser degree Edelman had been able to stay healthy if that would have continued. You no doubt think it would not have because you think he's the key to the offense. Again, and I stress this, his reduced role to begin the season is not my opinion I'm just relaying what happened because most people seem to have forgot or maybe remember and just dismiss at as fluke while forgetting injuries dictated they change the plan. I can't say if everyone had been healthy if Welker's role would have gone back to normal all I know is it was reduced until injuries hit.

Here's an article you probably read but always good to remember. This article was wrote after week 2, when Hernadez went down.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/8389280/new-england-patriots-receiving-corps-entering-state-flux

The second is more of a question: What is the coaching staff doing with Wes Welker? In a surprising development, Welker was third on the depth chart, playing behind Julian Edelman in two-receiver sets. In all, Edelman was on the field for 75 snaps (including penalties and a 2-point conversion), while Welker was on for 63. Welker said afterward that there is no injury-related issue that is holding him back.

The two issues met at a fork in the football road Sunday when Hernandez was injured on the team's third offensive play; he was engaged as a blocker on a short pass to Edelman when Edelman was tackled by cornerback William Gay into Hernandez' right leg.

Welker had been a spectator up to that point, but without Hernandez, the Patriots morphed from their base two-tight-end offense into more of a three-receiver attack. Welker was the third receiver. It was surprising to see the player who would break the all-time franchise record for receptions (562) later in the game relegated to backup status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).That said, I think NE can move on without him, and Aaron Hernandez will be the prime beneficiary of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
Especially Belichick. We are talking the coach probably most known in the NFL for preaching about playing the full 60 minutes and keeping the pedal pressed down at all times. That's a tough idea to swallow that he'd sacrifice his team to teach Welker a lesson. Even tougher to believe since his usage increased when injuries hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?
When you said you agreed with Ernol and followed it up with the link. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?
When you said you agreed with Ernol and followed it up with the link. :confused:
And I also said (see above) that it was my own take at the time and that was before I read any press account. Ernol felt the same way and after you dismissed the idea as being completely ridiculous the link was provided to show that there was (to use my own words) "speculation in the press," that this was the reason. If you bothered to read the link, they were simply discussing different theories of what happened, not saying that it was fact or should be taken as gospel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he broke the same bone twice in a short time frame, the worry is justified.

No it isn't. He had metal plate surgically placed in his arm as a result of the first break. The metal plate made the second break much more likely to occur while the arm was healing from the first break. From BleacherReport:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1486069-breaking-down-the-details-of-rob-gronkowskis-injury

When a fracture is indeed displaced, the primary goal of treatment is to avoid what are called "malunion" and "nonunion." In malunion, the broken toothpick reconnects itself but remains permanently deformed. In the dreaded nonunion, the bone does not reconnect itself at all.

That is where Gronkowski's metal plate comes in.

Once X-rays confirmed a displaced fracture, Gronkowski underwent surgery on his forearm to directly visualize the fracture, manually realign the bone into its proper anatomical position and use metal screws to attach the plate to the bone in order to reinforce that position.

In other words, the metal plate holds the broken bone together—in a straight line—until Gronkowski's body heals the break on its own.

Nevertheless, as Gronkowski and Patriots fans everywhere now know, the metal plate does not come without risks.

Along with ensuring proper bone realignment, the metal plate collects outside forces applied to its center—and thus the fracture site—and redistributes them to its ends. By doing so, it channels those forces from a relatively large area of bone and unleashes them on a much smaller one. If they overwhelm that smaller portion of bone, a new break results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronks 2nd break is meaningless. They wanted to get him back on the field to try and win a superbowl, and they did it too early. Gronk seems superhuman people, but he isn't.And as for Welker, wow, lot of BS conspiracy theories out there goin around. I will say it again, we are putting more emphasis on two games than a handful of year and the following 15-16 games after those two games???????????? Really? We are REALLY doing that??? Actually, it was really only ONE games. Welker had 11 targets week 2. There could be a million reasons why Welker only played 63 snaps (which is still a lot actually) per game to start the year. NONE of which were any plan to PHASE him out of the offense. Other than conspiracy theory, can ANYONE name one single logical reason the Patriots would try to phase Welker out that would HELP them win?? Probably not, cause there are not any logical reasons that phasing Welker out would actually help the team. Man, you guys read too many media yoyo stories isntead of using common sense.Now, back to the effect on Gronk if Welker leaves. MAYBE, it won't hurt Gronks fantasy productions, but I don't think it will help it at all. If anything, Welker gave Gronk more opportunities because he is the ultimate chain mover, and keeping drives alive is HUGE in fantasy football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?
When you said you agreed with Ernol and followed it up with the link. :confused:
And I also said (see above) that it was my own take at the time and that was before I read any press account. Ernol felt the same way and after you dismissed the idea as being completely ridiculous the link was provided to show that there was (to use my own words) "speculation in the press," that this was the reason. If you bothered to read the link, they were simply discussing different theories of what happened, not saying that it was fact or should be taken as gospel.
Did I read the link.There were no quotes from front office or coaches, so it is nothing more than journalistic conjuncture.

This is an example of the crying need for a former coach or front office person to be on hand to weigh in on these boards. I am 100% certain that if you called into Sirius and floated this theory by Brandt, Pollian or Kirwin, not to mention any of the former players, it would be laughed at. Winning a game in the NFL is difficult enough without worrying about things like contracts. It is never factored into a game plan. Trust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?
When you said you agreed with Ernol and followed it up with the link. :confused:
And I also said (see above) that it was my own take at the time and that was before I read any press account. Ernol felt the same way and after you dismissed the idea as being completely ridiculous the link was provided to show that there was (to use my own words) "speculation in the press," that this was the reason. If you bothered to read the link, they were simply discussing different theories of what happened, not saying that it was fact or should be taken as gospel.
Did I read the link.There were no quotes from front office or coaches, so it is nothing more than journalistic conjuncture.

This is an example of the crying need for a former coach or front office person to be on hand to weigh in on these boards. I am 100% certain that if you called into Sirius and floated this theory by Brandt, Pollian or Kirwin, not to mention any of the former players, it would be laughed at. Winning a game in the NFL is difficult enough without worrying about things like contracts. It is never factored into a game plan. Trust me.

Really? I guess that explains why the Chargers let Vincent Jackson sit out 10 games over a contract dispute when they really needed him. To say this never, under any circumstances, factors into the thinking of coaches and management not realistic IMO. Players are made an example of all the time to prove a point of some sort and results can hurt the team - classic example is Josh McDaniels (not coincidentally a BB disciple) not starting his two best WRs (Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler) in a crucial game with the playoffs on the line, because he didn't like their attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im more of the view that Welker's lack of playing time early on was more a function of NE showing him that he can be replaced and was not a necessary piece of the offense (i.e., showing him up as a result of the contract issues during the offseason and whatever went down behind the scenes, if anything).

:lmao: To think that a coach would cut an elite player's time to make a point about a contract issue is absurd. Coaches are doing everything they can to win each and every game (including cheating in BB's case). Things like contract issues do not factor into game plan decisions at all.
I agree with Ernol. That was my take on it at the time and there was speculation in the press that BB was making a point to Welker coming off the heels of his failed contract renegotiations.

Boston.com discussed theories at the time as to why Welker's playing time was cut and the below was one of them:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/2012/09/17/wes-welker-playing-time-theories/3Mcpmg88VLVRKxOlmBQw7O/pictures.html?pg=2&t=150&cp=2

They don't want to pay him

Welker wanted a long-term deal from the Patriots in the offseason and didn't get one, settling instead for the team's franchise player tag. While he's being paid as one of the game's top receivers this season, the Patriots haven't committed to Welker beyond this year. Might they be driving his price down for next offseason by playing him less? Could the Patriots retain Welker at a discount if other teams aren't as interested in his services?

Uuumm yea. You are taking journalistic conjuncture as gospel. That is your first mistake.
Where did I say I was taking it as gospel?
When you said you agreed with Ernol and followed it up with the link. :confused:
And I also said (see above) that it was my own take at the time and that was before I read any press account. Ernol felt the same way and after you dismissed the idea as being completely ridiculous the link was provided to show that there was (to use my own words) "speculation in the press," that this was the reason. If you bothered to read the link, they were simply discussing different theories of what happened, not saying that it was fact or should be taken as gospel.
Did I read the link.There were no quotes from front office or coaches, so it is nothing more than journalistic conjuncture.

This is an example of the crying need for a former coach or front office person to be on hand to weigh in on these boards. I am 100% certain that if you called into Sirius and floated this theory by Brandt, Pollian or Kirwin, not to mention any of the former players, it would be laughed at. Winning a game in the NFL is difficult enough without worrying about things like contracts. It is never factored into a game plan. Trust me.

Really? I guess that explains why the Chargers let Vincent Jackson sit out 10 games over a contract dispute when they really needed him. To say this never, under any circumstances, factors into the thinking of coaches and management not realistic IMO. Players are made an example of all the time to prove a point of some sort and results can hurt the team - classic example is Josh McDaniels (not coincidentally a BB disciple) not starting his two best WRs (Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler) in a crucial game with the playoffs on the line, because he didn't like their attitude.
The two cases mentioned above are far different than Welker's situation. VJax choose to hold out, he has never on the roster during game day, the staff never had an option to start him. The issue with Marshall/Scheffler was a disciplinary issue, much different than Welker's situation (healthy and willingly ready to contribute). Show me a quote from a front office exec or a coach, then I will lend credence to this idea. Otherwise I will continue to label it ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.