Rob Gronkowski has value. (1 Viewer)

[ponchsox]

The shark move is to take Gronk if he falls to the 5th and draft Zach Sudfeld late in the draft.

 

[LawFitz]

I guess it depends on whether you are confident enough to grab a startable player later in the draft. The WR2 field is super deep, so if I go this route, I think that's where I'll target filling the hole that's created by using my 5th rounder on the Gronk. Yes, it's THE Gronk.

Thanks to SSOG and Massraider for making me feel better about his prognosis.

Here's the thing. NO ONE knows what his prognosis is. Certainly no one at FBG. I doubt Gronk, his doctors, or the Patriots really know either. Each recovery is different, just like each surgery goes differently.

And what exactly does "being able to take the field in 12 weeks" really mean? Does that mean he can play 80+ snaps? Or does that mean in 12 weeks he can be on the field and jogging?

I ask this because like I posted earlier in the thread, on his original back surgery in college (which was the same type of surgery), Gronk had the surgery and was shut down for the rest of the season. IIRC, he could have played in a bowl game and/or a college all-star game, yet he didn't. And that was way past 12 weeks post-surgery. I think it would have been 16 weeks after surgery, but I would have to research the particulars.

And for all the fantasy football owners that want Gronk playing every down and racking up fantasy points, I'm pretty sure the Patriots are more concerned about having Gronk 100% healthy in January then they are him playing every play in September. Their last two playoffs runs came to a halt when Gronk was not healthy or unavailable. So if the Pats had to pick between Gronk going for 100/2 in September or in January, I guarantee it will be in January.

Good post. I guess it depends on your confidence:

a. that Gronk will be back to full or near full strength/speed by midseason (I'm hopeful); and

b. in your ability to get to at least .500 before then, so that you're set up to make a run once Gronk is ready.

It's a risky play, but IF Gronk is even at 80-90% of his past productivity come playoff time, he could single handedly push a good team over the top to a championship.

 

[massraider]

Here's the thing. NO ONE knows what his prognosis is. Certainly no one at FBG. I doubt Gronk, his doctors, or the Patriots really know either. Each recovery is different, just like each surgery goes differently.

This isn't some experimental surgery. Yes, every recovery is different, and things can happen, we only need to look at Gronk's forearm to know that. But every injury we hear about comes with a recovery timeline, Gronk's isn't that much more of a mystery. It was a preventative surgery, to correct something he has been dealing with.

And what exactly does "being able to take the field in 12 weeks" really mean? Does that mean he can play 80+ snaps? Or does that mean in 12 weeks he can be on the field and jogging?

I ask this because like I posted earlier in the thread, on his original back surgery in college (which was the same type of surgery), Gronk had the surgery and was shut down for the rest of the season. IIRC, he could have played in a bowl game and/or a college all-star game, yet he didn't. And that was way past 12 weeks post-surgery. I think it would have been 16 weeks after surgery, but I would have to research the particulars.

Being able to take the field means the same thing it means with every other player, who has suffered an injury.

Yep, had the surgery in September, I dunno when in September, and that really makes a difference. My main question about the timeline with his college surgery is this: His older brother had a similar thing, and was rushed back, and put on weights too early. Was he unable to go by the end of the year? Or did he decide it was smarter to not risk another injury, and get ready for the draft? Just a thought.

And for all the fantasy football owners that want Gronk playing every down and racking up fantasy points, I'm pretty sure the Patriots are more concerned about having Gronk 100% healthy in January then they are him playing every play in September. Their last two playoffs runs came to a halt when Gronk was not healthy or unavailable. So if the Pats had to pick between Gronk going for 100/2 in September or in January, I guarantee it will be in January.

He's their second best player, and probably second most important. They want him back, and if the docs say he's ready to go, he'll practice and play.

Maybe he only gets 20 snaps a game for a week or two. That'd probably put him around TE5 every week, for pete's sake.

I don't think it's a lock for him to start 14-16 games, and be a stud, but when I read "likely to miss 6 games", well, I do a little research, and I don't see anything, AT ALL, to back that up.

 

[Anarchy99]

Here's the thing. NO ONE knows what his prognosis is. Certainly no one at FBG. I doubt Gronk, his doctors, or the Patriots really know either. Each recovery is different, just like each surgery goes differently.

This isn't some experimental surgery. Yes, every recovery is different, and things can happen, we only need to look at Gronk's forearm to know that. But every injury we hear about comes with a recovery timeline, Gronk's isn't that much more of a mystery. It was a preventative surgery, to correct something he has been dealing with.

And what exactly does "being able to take the field in 12 weeks" really mean? Does that mean he can play 80+ snaps? Or does that mean in 12 weeks he can be on the field and jogging?

I ask this because like I posted earlier in the thread, on his original back surgery in college (which was the same type of surgery), Gronk had the surgery and was shut down for the rest of the season. IIRC, he could have played in a bowl game and/or a college all-star game, yet he didn't. And that was way past 12 weeks post-surgery. I think it would have been 16 weeks after surgery, but I would have to research the particulars.

Being able to take the field means the same thing it means with every other player, who has suffered an injury.

Yep, had the surgery in September, I dunno when in September, and that really makes a difference. My main question about the timeline with his college surgery is this: His older brother had a similar thing, and was rushed back, and put on weights too early. Was he unable to go by the end of the year? Or did he decide it was smarter to not risk another injury, and get ready for the draft? Just a thought.

And for all the fantasy football owners that want Gronk playing every down and racking up fantasy points, I'm pretty sure the Patriots are more concerned about having Gronk 100% healthy in January then they are him playing every play in September. Their last two playoffs runs came to a halt when Gronk was not healthy or unavailable. So if the Pats had to pick between Gronk going for 100/2 in September or in January, I guarantee it will be in January.

He's their second best player, and probably second most important. They want him back, and if the docs say he's ready to go, he'll practice and play.

Maybe he only gets 20 snaps a game for a week or two. That'd probably put him around TE5 every week, for pete's sake.

I don't think it's a lock for him to start 14-16 games, and be a stud, but when I read "likely to miss 6 games", well, I do a little research, and I don't see anything, AT ALL, to back that up.

But there's nothing definitive to support him NOT missing 6 games either. He's a candidate to start the year on the PUP list. From what I can tell, he's doing rehab work but obviously has not been practicing. If people want to draft him and roll the dice that he may or may not miss 6 games, that's their call.

I'm clearly not a doctor, but reading back on Gronk's college surgery, they certainly didn't describe it as minor or simple. Now he has the same surgery again on a different section of his spine and this go round it was a "simple and minor procedure" according to his agent. A doctor I know told me that there is no such thing as "simple" back surgery. If you didn't need it, you wouldn't have it. So all the talk from Gronk's camp that it was "elective" surgery was hogwash and total spin doctoring to make it sound like it was nothing. It's not like back surgery is like a voluntary botox injection.

He may not start the year on the PUP list . . . but that doesn't necessarily mean he plays 16 games either. But my concern is last I looked up Gronk's ADP, he was not a 5th round pick. He was the 28th player off the draft board. Not sure where the 5th round element game from.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think the conditioning thing is being overblown some. How often has that really been an issue? Great players generally come back as great players. Adrian Peterson's first practice last year wasn't until August 14th and that included 10 "snaps" where he jogged and wasn't allowed to be touched. Keep in mind that was also for a running back, where being in good shape is significantly more important.

Even if it does take him a few games to get up to speed from a conditioning standpoint, as others have pointed out Gronk on half his normal snap regiment is still probably going to be one of the top TEs in the league.

 

[tsarc888]

based on the information we know (or don't know) now, I would personally not be willing to draft him until the 6th round. That is just me though, I can certainly understand the arguments for earlier or later.

 

[Kenny Powers]

He may not start the year on the PUP list . . . but that doesn't necessarily mean he plays 16 games either. But my concern is last I looked up Gronk's ADP, he was not a 5th round pick. He was the 28th player off the draft board. Not sure where the 5th round element game from.

Yeah, his ADP in all formats is at worst late 3rd-early 4th right now. I understand why some people are able to grab him in the 5th right now, but as the season nears if it does sound like he's going on the active roster and wont miss more than a couple games, his ADP is sticking hard mid 3rd. If he ends up on PUP, I would imagine he consistently drops down to the 5th or even 6th round.

Those getting him that late now may get lucky and he'll only miss a few games, but if he ends up going on PUP then really all the "value" of getting Gronk that late is gone.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He started working out at least three weeks ago (maybe four). IIRC it was stretching and light core work. Presumably he's progressed since then, but it's not like they're going to tell us how many reps he did on the bench.

If he practices before the final cuts it'd be great news. But if he doesn't I don't think you can read much into it. Even one practice would make him ineligible for the PUP list and even if they don't think they'll need that it might be wise to keep that option open.

Given that the team continues to be optimistic, the original recovery time was estimated at 12 weeks, JPP's similar 12 week recovery time was considered a race for Week 1, and the fact that the surgery was originally scheduled so the recovery could overlap with that of his arm and have him ready for the season I continue to believe that Gronk will be close to fully recovered in time to play early in the season and won't be PUPed.

 

[Longtucky Lemmings]

His value depends on the league structure. Any league with end of season playoffs will boost his value.

Dude, stop with this league structure crap.

It's simple, stay away in redraft, in Dyno he will have #2 TE value next year.

It is not that simple. If your league has playoffs in a redraft, and you put a good team around Gronk, him coming back for the stretch run is like having a winning lottery ticket. Because he is that dominant when he plays. But it is definitely a risk, and a lot of FF players do not like taking risks, so I get why a lot of people will steer clear of him.

But again, and it was already pointed out, if you start of 1-3 or 0-4 because you wasted a 5th round pick on a TE who is not certain to be back, whats the point?

Agreed - but isn't it a bit extreme to suggest that ONE PLAYER picked in the 5th round is going to be the deciding factor that causes you to go 0-4? Seems to me if you draft well for all your other picks you can survive (maybe even succeed) without Gronk for a few weeks. Then, imagine the boost when you get him back.

Listen, as long as you draft a viable Tier 2 or Tier 3 TE to cover for Gronk missing for a few weeks it's not like you're getting zero points from your TE slot while Gronk is out.

Not really considering who u take in the 5thr ound will be starting for you, so you will be a starter down for weeks, how does that not have an effect on your team?

In Fact, a large effect.

I'm just not sure I agree with this sentiment. I drafted McFadden in the first round last year and still won my league. If I can succeed with a bum first round pick I'm sure I can find a way to succeed with a 5th round pick I won't have the first 6 weeks.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yudkin, honest question for you. I think, with Brady and Belichick (and the rest of the AFCE), making the playoffs is almost a foregone conclusion for the Patriots. However, what do you think their chances are of earning a 1st round bye if Gronkowski is either out entirely or only Gronk-lite for the first 8 games? Given all of the questions in the receiving corps and given what a sieve their defense has been recently, I think letting Gronk come back slowly would likely cost New England a bye. I'm not suggesting that New England will rush him back before he's ready, but I also don't see the team taking it slower than they have to.

 

[Adam Harstad]

His value depends on the league structure. Any league with end of season playoffs will boost his value.

Dude, stop with this league structure crap.

It's simple, stay away in redraft, in Dyno he will have #2 TE value next year.

Why would Gronk's value go DOWN in dynasty next year?

 

[bucsbaby]

Does anyone have any news on Ballard possibly being the one to fill in for Gronk while/if he's out?

 

[Thews40]

Maybe he only gets 20 snaps a game for a week or two. That'd probably put him around TE5 every week, for pete's sake.

I think you're being overly optimistic here. He's still on the PUP list and will most probably miss the first six weeks. When one has back surgery and the 4th surgery on a forearm, it's not like he's hitting the weights right now. To get into football shape takes time.

The question is draft value. How many posters here with optimistic expectations have already drafted him? My guess is that by week 7 you'll be following the news that he may start... "may" being the operative word. Would you start him in that scenario, or wait a week? The crux of this is draft value now, and having Gronk listed as a top 10 TE right now is a big mistake IMO. If he misses six weeks, can you afford that with a top 5 pick? There's far better value out there with much less risk.

With Hernandez and Welker to deal with last year in the middle Gronk had the opportunity to get open. I realize Brady looked sharp in his first preseason outing, but when it's game on, even if Gronkowski were 100% I seriously doubt he'd have anywhere near the numbers he did last year. Last year is not this year and Gronk is human and needs to heal. A top six pick this year is wasted IMO. I think one gets "Gronked" this year by drafting him as their #1 TE.

 

[Anarchy99]

Yudkin, honest question for you. I think, with Brady and Belichick (and the rest of the AFCE), making the playoffs is almost a foregone conclusion for the Patriots. However, what do you think their chances are of earning a 1st round bye if Gronkowski is either out entirely or only Gronk-lite for the first 8 games? Given all of the questions in the receiving corps and given what a sieve their defense has been recently, I think letting Gronk come back slowly would likely cost New England a bye. I'm not suggesting that New England will rush him back before he's ready, but I also don't see the team taking it slower than they have to.

I see NE 12-4 this year with the winner of the NE/DEN game as the favorite to win the #1 seed. I give the nod currently to DEN in both that game and best record in the AFC. If you look at the Pats schedule, it does not look that difficult on paper (who knows how the opponents will turn out to be however). So as far as Gronk goes, the Denver game isn't until around Thanksgiving. The Pats should be 3-0 when they face ATL in Week 4, and I have heard that that is really the target they hop to have Gronk available in at least some capacity. The Pats schedule in the second half of the season appears to be much more difficult, so taking it easy on Gronk early could be a natural thing to do.

From what I have seen, I do not expect much of a drop off on offense, but I do expect some improvement on defense. If the Pats are winning without Gronk, then they may have the luxury of not rushing him back. If they struggle without him, they will have more incentive to play him sooner and with more reps right away.

Bottom line, we won't know until we get there, which is what makes this whole situation fascinating.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Yudkin, honest question for you. I think, with Brady and Belichick (and the rest of the AFCE), making the playoffs is almost a foregone conclusion for the Patriots. However, what do you think their chances are of earning a 1st round bye if Gronkowski is either out entirely or only Gronk-lite for the first 8 games? Given all of the questions in the receiving corps and given what a sieve their defense has been recently, I think letting Gronk come back slowly would likely cost New England a bye. I'm not suggesting that New England will rush him back before he's ready, but I also don't see the team taking it slower than they have to.

I see NE 12-4 this year with the winner of the NE/DEN game as the favorite to win the #1 seed. I give the nod currently to DEN in both that game and best record in the AFC. If you look at the Pats schedule, it does not look that difficult on paper (who knows how the opponents will turn out to be however). So as far as Gronk goes, the Denver game isn't until around Thanksgiving. The Pats should be 3-0 when they face ATL in Week 4, and I have heard that that is really the target they hop to have Gronk available in at least some capacity. The Pats schedule in the second half of the season appears to be much more difficult, so taking it easy on Gronk early could be a natural thing to do.

From what I have seen, I do not expect much of a drop off on offense, but I do expect some improvement on defense. If the Pats are winning without Gronk, then they may have the luxury of not rushing him back. If they struggle without him, they will have more incentive to play him sooner and with more reps right away.

Bottom line, we won't know until we get there, which is what makes this whole situation fascinating.

Thanks. I have a lot of faith in Brady, and think people are selling him short so far this year. With that said, I have a really hard time envisioning New England's offense losing all of those contributors and not missing anything, especially without a healthy Gronkowski to lean on. I agree the defense will likely be better (nowhere to go but up, right?), but I guess I'm just not as sanguine about their chances of taking it slow with Gronk and still making it to 12-4 and a first round bye.

Obviously you're a lot more familiar with the Pats than I am, but my general impression of them has always been that they're not the kind of team that plays things safe or takes things easy when it comes to players returning from injury. Would you say I've misread them, or do you think they're going to make an exception in this case?

 

[Anarchy99]

Yudkin, honest question for you. I think, with Brady and Belichick (and the rest of the AFCE), making the playoffs is almost a foregone conclusion for the Patriots. However, what do you think their chances are of earning a 1st round bye if Gronkowski is either out entirely or only Gronk-lite for the first 8 games? Given all of the questions in the receiving corps and given what a sieve their defense has been recently, I think letting Gronk come back slowly would likely cost New England a bye. I'm not suggesting that New England will rush him back before he's ready, but I also don't see the team taking it slower than they have to.

I see NE 12-4 this year with the winner of the NE/DEN game as the favorite to win the #1 seed. I give the nod currently to DEN in both that game and best record in the AFC. If you look at the Pats schedule, it does not look that difficult on paper (who knows how the opponents will turn out to be however). So as far as Gronk goes, the Denver game isn't until around Thanksgiving. The Pats should be 3-0 when they face ATL in Week 4, and I have heard that that is really the target they hop to have Gronk available in at least some capacity. The Pats schedule in the second half of the season appears to be much more difficult, so taking it easy on Gronk early could be a natural thing to do.

From what I have seen, I do not expect much of a drop off on offense, but I do expect some improvement on defense. If the Pats are winning without Gronk, then they may have the luxury of not rushing him back. If they struggle without him, they will have more incentive to play him sooner and with more reps right away.

Bottom line, we won't know until we get there, which is what makes this whole situation fascinating.

Thanks. I have a lot of faith in Brady, and think people are selling him short so far this year. With that said, I have a really hard time envisioning New England's offense losing all of those contributors and not missing anything, especially without a healthy Gronkowski to lean on. I agree the defense will likely be better (nowhere to go but up, right?), but I guess I'm just not as sanguine about their chances of taking it slow with Gronk and still making it to 12-4 and a first round bye.

Obviously you're a lot more familiar with the Pats than I am, but my general impression of them has always been that they're not the kind of team that plays things safe or takes things easy when it comes to players returning from injury. Would you say I've misread them, or do you think they're going to make an exception in this case?

O don't think you've misread them, but if you look at their schedule, the way their games set up, who they face home and away, etc. and try to predict the outcome of their games, 12-4 does not seem like it's really reaching.

As far as the Pats offense and losing weapons goes, I think this will be the year that BB and JM get their due as coaches and offensive masterminds. And Brady will shine for putting the ball where it needs to be so non-elite talent can be very productive.

I harken back to last year when Peyton went to the Broncos. He hadn't played for a full season, people had doubts about his neck, and he COMPLETELY switched everything. Olines, receivers (who were very raw and mostly unproven), coaches, and had to play for Fox (a conservative coach by reputation). Manning, because he was Manning, then produced the second best fantasy season of his career.

In Brady's case, sure a lot of his targets are different, but he still plays behind one of the best Olines in the game, has the best coach, and has probably the best fit ever as an OC for a team in the history of the NFL. IMO, the change factor and health factor for Brady vs. Manning last year is probably not even half of what Manning had to deal with. And we saw how that turned out.

If nothing else, the Pats offense will create mismatches. Brady is certainly a good enough QB to identify and exploit those mismatches and throw a catchable pass. Most of the time, I don't think it will matter if the name on the jersey catching it is MOSS or WELKER. It may matter on a few plays here and there, but overall I think they will do what they always do. They will play to the strengths of their team and morph into a different offense with new wrinkles and new schemes for folks to ponder over.

In fact, I happen to think that what they were running was getting a little stale and predictable. It was good enough to blow the doors off of most teams but not good enough to beat the better defenses. This year, teams will have almost no film or heads up initially on what to expect from the Pats.

The Shark Pool threads are EXHIBIT A to that effect. Real games start in a few more weeks, and we can't even come to a consensus on who will make the team, who the offensive starters will be, what formations they will run out of, and who the main cogs of the offense will be. Just think what defensive coordinators are up against.

I heard talk on a national radio show that this will be the year that teams stack 8 in the box and force the Pats to beat them with the pass. I was like, REALLY? With Brady at QB and that OL? That sounded like a disaster in the making for teams defending NE. Like suddenly Brady didn't know how to pass or the coaching staff did not remember how to game plan.

The other thing to remember about NE is that while the receivers may be new, the rest of the team is more experience and with the exception of Gronk pretty much healthy . . . which, in the past few off seasons seemingly they had a M*A*S*H unit and triage set up by opening day. If the Pats can pressure the QB, their defense could go from bad to good almost overnight. I am still skeptical on that, as we've been saying that for 5 years. But this year I think they may have some better puzzle pieces.

I would be pretty shocked if they did not score 500 points again this year, and I would not be surprised if they cut down on their points allowed a fair amount as well. The net result could be a more balanced team with a return to a team with fewer stars and more above average producers, which was pretty much the formula they had when they were winning titles.

That being said, they should make the playoffs with relative ease, and I don't think they will have a problem getting the two seed. So that game against Denver could be for home field advantage. Certainly the Broncos look a little better on paper, but I think most of that is a comparison of the two team's wide receivers. Denver's defense seemed to be a lot better in the regular season last year, but they certainly didn't look as good against the Ravens in the post season.

I think it will be interesting to see if another team can make a run to take away a bye from Denver or New England. Granted, the Ravens are reigning champs, but I think they had a ton of turnover and went backwards. I thought the Texans were primed to make a deeper playoff run, but they kind of fizzled. The Bengals look to be a team on the rise, but I'm not sure either one topples NE or DEN. But as we know, sometimes things turn out WAY different than what was expected when the season started.

 

[massraider]

Maybe he only gets 20 snaps a game for a week or two. That'd probably put him around TE5 every week, for pete's sake.

I think you're being overly optimistic here. He's still on the PUP list and will most probably miss the first six weeks. .

That's some big news, where you get that from?

 

[Thews40]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000213472/article/new-england-patriots-will-add-rob-gronkowski-to-pup-list

New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski will start the preseason on the physically unable to perform list, according to a person informed of the decision. That means Gronkowski will not be on the field with his teammates when they begin training camp.

Debate: Pats due for a setback?

With Rob Gronkowski still not healthy, our analysts debate whether the Patriots are bound to take a step backward in 2013. More ...
Putting Gronk on the PUP list was an expected decision, given that he had back surgery Tuesday -- his fifth surgical procedure this year. The source clarified on Wednesday that the move is for certain.

 

[Anarchy99]

The news would be if he remains on the PUP list to start the regular season, which is the big unknown at this point.

 

[massraider]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000213472/article/new-england-patriots-will-add-rob-gronkowski-to-pup-list

New England Patriots tight end Rob Gronkowski will start the preseason on the physically unable to perform list, according to a person informed of the decision. That means Gronkowski will not be on the field with his teammates when they begin training camp.

Debate: Pats due for a setback?

With Rob Gronkowski still not healthy, our analysts debate whether the Patriots are bound to take a step backward in 2013. More ...
Putting Gronk on the PUP list was an expected decision, given that he had back surgery Tuesday -- his fifth surgical procedure this year. The source clarified on Wednesday that the move is for certain.

Yeah, I don't think you know the difference between preseason PUP, and regular season PUP.

 

[shuke]

 

[massraider]

http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2013/08/source_gronkowski_right_on_schedule_could_be_ready_by_week_3

Source: Gronkowski 'right on schedule,' could be ready by Week 3

By:
Karen Guregian
You may be seeing Rob Gronkowski sooner, rather than later. How about Week 3 against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers?

According to a source, Gronk is doing very well in his rehabilliation from back and forearm surgeries performed in May and June. He's "right on schedule" for a mid-September return. In fact, he's healed and advanced to the point where he would be close to playing Week 1 in Buffalo, the source said.

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

To this point, Gronk has been a spectator at practice, signing plenty of autographs.

- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/the_blitz/2013/08/source_gronkowski_right_on_schedule_could_be_ready_by_week_3#sthash.Bcjfb8lX.dpu
Apologies for weird formatting.

Good news if true.

 

[Kenny Powers]

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

​

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

Practice would be the last part of his recovery -- I think I've heard 1-2 weeks before being game ready. He's probably not there yet.

Also, if he practices even once he's not eligible for regular season PUP. I'm guessing the Pats would like to keep that option open even if they hope not to need it.

 

[massraider]

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

Dpes 6 weeks of practice before he returns to the field sound right to you?

 

[cr8f]

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

It's the Patriots & they like confusion with their players?

 

[Kenny Powers]

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

Dpes 6 weeks of practice before he returns to the field sound right to you?

Thats what the rest of the team does before the season starts

 

[massraider]

However, the more realistic time frame for him to be ready and in "football shape" would be shortly after, right around Game 3 against Tampa Bay assuming there are no setbacks. Now, if that's the case, it would seem unlikely the Pats would keep the tight end on the physically unable to perform list, which is currently where he resides. Having him stay on PUP would guarantee he misses the first six games. Given the timetable laid out, unless the Pats go the overly-cautious route, it would appear they'd take him off the PUP list, with thoughts of having him as early as Game 3, or perhaps Game 4 in Atlanta.

As it is, the Pats have been doing their best to hold him back, according to the source.

Gronkowski's name came up today with an ESPN report saying it was "not realistic" to expect the Pro Bowl tight end to play the first week against the Bills. That was never really in the forecast, but the news is very encouraging. Gronk is closing in on a return. The mid-to-late September projections we had initially are on target. The PUP decision appears much clearer. Barring a setback once he gets back on the playing field in earnest, Week 3 looks about right.

What I dont get is if these reports are true, and a Week 3-4 return is correct, why hasnt he already been taken off PUP so he can practice with the team?

Dpes 6 weeks of practice before he returns to the field sound right to you?

Thats what the rest of the team does before the season starts

If a guy misses two weeks of training camp, does he miss two games

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just thought I'd point out how getting Gronkowski just a little bit early has turned out to be a really brilliant move.

Besides Graham and Vern Davis owners, it seems to me everyone is struggling right now at TE:

Julius - injury

Witten - he's on, he's off, on, off

Gonz, same thing - good game, mediocre game, repeat, on a terrible team

Finley - out after his first good game mid-year

Daniels - out, hurt

Reed - hurt, no word on the health of his noggin

Cook - it happened and then it went away quickly

Cameron - MIA

Etc.

Olsen is closing well but that's it really.

I'd have to think Gronk owners are smiling cheshire grins right now.