Rob Gronkowski - TE, NWE - Week 4 Status Updates (1 Viewer)

[Adam Harstad]

Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.

I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.

that might be the best rule I ever heard

I think it's weak. I don't think there is anything unfair about an early GTD vs a late one. Part of playing fantasy football is taking risk. In this case, people can have two TEs on their team. You can either play it safe and play the TE with the earlier game, or take the risk with the GTD player with the late game. Roll the dice or don't.

The risk is not evenly distributed, though.

Imagine owner A has two tight ends- Rob Gronkowski and Jared Cook. Jared Cook is 100% healthy and plays on Thursday. Rob Gronkowski is a game-time decision and plays Sunday night.

Owner B has two tight ends- Grob Bronkowski and Jarius Crook. Jarius Crook is 100% healthy and plays on Sunday night. Grob Bronkowski is a game-time decision and plays on Thursday.

Obviously in this situation, Owner B has a big advantage. He can check the inactives list prior to the Thursday game, and if Grob is playing owner B can start him, but if Grob is inactive owner B can roll with Crook on Sunday, instead. Owner B has the advantage of full access to all information before making his decision. There is no risk at all.

Owner A, on the other hand, is operating at a big disadvantage. He can either play it safe and start his inferior option on Thursday (Cook), or he can gamble on his better player (Gronkowski) and risk potentially taking a zero at the position. While Owner B gets the luxury of seeing whether his best TE is active before making his decision, Owner A is not afforded the same luxury unless he manages to get his hands on a time machine. Owner A is playing at a disadvantage owing to nothing other than the order in which the NFL scheduled its games. As I said, the risk is not evenly distributed.

Conditional lineups solve that unequal distribution of risk. Owner B gets to start Bronkowski if he's healthy, and Crook if he's not. Owner A gets to start Gronkowski if he's healthy, and Cook if he's not. Neither owner has an information advantage for the week. Balance is restored to the universe.

 

[WilsonTheVolleyball]

Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.

I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.

that might be the best rule I ever heard

I think it's weak. I don't think there is anything unfair about an early GTD vs a late one. Part of playing fantasy football is taking risk. In this case, people can have two TEs on their team. You can either play it safe and play the TE with the earlier game, or take the risk with the GTD player with the late game. Roll the dice or don't.

The risk is not evenly distributed, though.

Imagine owner A has two tight ends- Rob Gronkowski and Jared Cook. Jared Cook is 100% healthy and plays on Thursday. Rob Gronkowski is a game-time decision and plays Sunday night.

Owner B has two tight ends- Grob Bronkowski and Jarius Crook. Jarius Crook is 100% healthy and plays on Sunday night. Grob Bronkowski is a game-time decision and plays on Thursday.

Obviously in this situation, Owner B has a big advantage. He can check the inactives list prior to the Thursday game, and if Grob is playing owner B can start him, but if Grob is inactive owner B can roll with Crook on Sunday, instead. Owner B has the advantage of full access to all information before making his decision. There is no risk at all.

Owner A, on the other hand, is operating at a big disadvantage. He can either play it safe and start his inferior option on Thursday (Cook), or he can gamble on his better player (Gronkowski) and risk potentially taking a zero at the position. While Owner B gets the luxury of seeing whether his best TE is active before making his decision, Owner A is not afforded the same luxury unless he manages to get his hands on a time machine. Owner A is playing at a disadvantage owing to nothing other than the order in which the NFL scheduled its games. As I said, the risk is not evenly distributed.

Conditional lineups solve that unequal distribution of risk. Owner B gets to start Bronkowski if he's healthy, and Crook if he's not. Owner A gets to start Gronkowski if he's healthy, and Cook if he's not. Neither owner has an information advantage for the week. Balance is restored to the universe.

Sheesh. If I ever knew of a league that had such a rule, I'd instantly decide to not participate in it. Talk about babying to the extreme.

I'm actually the Jared Cook / Rob Gronkowski owner here and I sat Cook this week in hopes that Gronk will play Sunday. If Cook had went off, whatever. It's called managing your team. If the Gronkowski owner can't live with him or herself for the possibility of making a wrong lineup decision this weekend, then I have a simple solution: trade Gronkowski.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I've got a team that could use Grob Bronkowski, gonna go snag him off the wire.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.

I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.

that might be the best rule I ever heard

I think it's weak. I don't think there is anything unfair about an early GTD vs a late one. Part of playing fantasy football is taking risk. In this case, people can have two TEs on their team. You can either play it safe and play the TE with the earlier game, or take the risk with the GTD player with the late game. Roll the dice or don't.

The risk is not evenly distributed, though.

Imagine owner A has two tight ends- Rob Gronkowski and Jared Cook. Jared Cook is 100% healthy and plays on Thursday. Rob Gronkowski is a game-time decision and plays Sunday night.

Owner B has two tight ends- Grob Bronkowski and Jarius Crook. Jarius Crook is 100% healthy and plays on Sunday night. Grob Bronkowski is a game-time decision and plays on Thursday.

Obviously in this situation, Owner B has a big advantage. He can check the inactives list prior to the Thursday game, and if Grob is playing owner B can start him, but if Grob is inactive owner B can roll with Crook on Sunday, instead. Owner B has the advantage of full access to all information before making his decision. There is no risk at all.

Owner A, on the other hand, is operating at a big disadvantage. He can either play it safe and start his inferior option on Thursday (Cook), or he can gamble on his better player (Gronkowski) and risk potentially taking a zero at the position. While Owner B gets the luxury of seeing whether his best TE is active before making his decision, Owner A is not afforded the same luxury unless he manages to get his hands on a time machine. Owner A is playing at a disadvantage owing to nothing other than the order in which the NFL scheduled its games. As I said, the risk is not evenly distributed.

Conditional lineups solve that unequal distribution of risk. Owner B gets to start Bronkowski if he's healthy, and Crook if he's not. Owner A gets to start Gronkowski if he's healthy, and Cook if he's not. Neither owner has an information advantage for the week. Balance is restored to the universe.

Sheesh. If I ever knew of a league that had such a rule, I'd instantly decide to not participate in it. Talk about babying to the extreme.

I'm actually the Jared Cook / Rob Gronkowski owner here and I sat Cook this week in hopes that Gronk will play Sunday. If Cook had went off, whatever. It's called managing your team. If the Gronkowski owner can't live with him or herself for the possibility of making a wrong lineup decision this weekend, then I have a simple solution: trade Gronkowski.

Several of the owners in my league felt the same way when I introduced the rule. There are a few guys who could take the rule or leave it, but after 7 years, everyone's pretty happy with it. Again, it's not about eliminating risk (trust me, there's still plenty of risk in starting a guy who is a game-time decision- just ask Roddy White owners). It's about making sure that risk is evenly distributed. Starting a player shouldn't be a bigger risk if the guy plays on Monday than it is if he plays on Thursday. The order the NFL decides to play the games should not have an impact on how many points your fantasy team scores.

But by all means, you'd be free not to participate. Fantasy football is a big tent, and there's room underneath it for all sorts of owners who like or dislike all sorts of different rules. I'd have no trouble finding people eager to participate in a league with a rule like that. You'd have no trouble finding a league that didn't have any rules like that. There's no need to compromise when everyone can get what they want.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'll never get the folks who want to maximize the role of randomness and luck.

 

[phowler13]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

 

[mikel0254]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

You waited 4 weeks and now you're going to shop him? If he doesn't play this week, he's going to be back next week or the one after. Bad move to trade him, IMO

 

[phowler13]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

You waited 4 weeks and now you're going to shop him? If he doesn't play this week, he's going to be back next week or the one after. Bad move to trade him, IMO

That's fine, I hope he comes back strong, but there may be no better time to shop him then right before he comes back? What's to say he isn't the same? Back surgery, no workouts, infection, arm surgery who knows. His value could drop quite a bit. I'll be shopping him or Cameron, and am trying to figure out what people have seen him go for...

 

[elbowrm]

I also own Gronk and Cameron and am considering offering either one for Spiller. The numbers say yes but my gut says no.

 

[MattFancy]

I also own Gronk and Cameron and am considering offering either one for Spiller. The numbers say yes but my gut says no.

I was able to package both of those TEs in a deal for Foster and VDavis. I couldn't turn it down

 

[HurryUpSundays]

I'll never get the folks who want to maximize the role of randomness and luck.

Randomness + luck + educated guesses = fantasy football

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.

I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.

The longest-running league I participated in (folded this year after 13 years) had a similar rule in place since Day 1. You set your lineup as normal, but you leave a note in a designated thread on the site that in case X is ruled inactive, you want to roll with Y instead.

I thought it was silly at first, but the more the NFL started spreading out games, the more valuable this kind of flexibility became. It saved us many times even in cases without late games - a few of us were consultants / biz dev't types in the early days, and we'd often be on planes heading to a client on Sunday afternoons without access to PCs (and of course long before iPhone apps).

Highly recommend the concept.

 

[glumpy]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

You waited 4 weeks and now you're going to shop him? If he doesn't play this week, he's going to be back next week or the one after. Bad move to trade him, IMO

I've been doing the same though I'm not actively shopping. Picked him up as a flyer and already have Graham, and any offers so far haven't been appealing. It's worth waiting until there's need--either mine or someone else's.

 

[glumpy]

Slightly off topic, but one league I run has a rule allowing conditional lineup requests for situations just like this. On Saturday, you submit a request designating a starter and a backup. If the starter is inactive, you get the backup's score, instead. If the starter is active but puts up a zero, you're out of luck.

I've never thought it was fair that someone whose player was a game-time decision in an early game had an advantage over someone whose player was a game-time decision in a late game.

The longest-running league I participated in (folded this year after 13 years) had a similar rule in place since Day 1. You set your lineup as normal, but you leave a note in a designated thread on the site that in case X is ruled inactive, you want to roll with Y instead.

I thought it was silly at first, but the more the NFL started spreading out games, the more valuable this kind of flexibility became. It saved us many times even in cases without late games - a few of us were consultants / biz dev't types in the early days, and we'd often be on planes heading to a client on Sunday afternoons without access to PCs (and of course long before iPhone apps).

Highly recommend the concept.

We do the same in my league nearing 20 years I think. Highly recommend as well.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

Just making sure I understand the concept of this rule change. You have Cook and Gronk. You enter your starting lineup with Gronk. Cook scores 10 on you Thursday night but doesn't count. All the games are played Sunday then an hour before the game Gronk get declared inactive. Sometime after that the commish goes in and forces Cook along with his 10 pts back into your starting lineup? Sound right? I'm not sure if I like that or not. The Gronk owner in me would love that today but I'm not sure how I would feel if I was up 9 and my opponant backs into 10 points to beat me.

WE just allow changes to the lineups up until the start of each game. This week, for instance, I have Gronk in my flex but have Bolden sitting on the bench. If I didn't have Bolden I would have picked up Pierre Thomas from Monday night or the recently dropped Sudfield or whoever.

I am leaning toward the alternate scenario actually increasing the randomness and luck. The way we play it seems to make you make the tough choice and plan. Even as I type this though I am intrigued by that rule.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

I'll never get the folks who want to maximize the role of randomness and luck.

I'm with you!

 

[mikel0254]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

You waited 4 weeks and now you're going to shop him? If he doesn't play this week, he's going to be back next week or the one after. Bad move to trade him, IMO

I've been doing the same though I'm not actively shopping. Picked him up as a flyer and already have Graham, and any offers so far haven't been appealing. It's worth waiting until there's need--either mine or someone else's.

You're in a different situation than most. You have the top 2 TE's, so yes, I'd be trading him too.

 

[mikel0254]

Sterting to get a bit nervous about this, and was thinking of shopping Gronk. Curious as to his value, have you seen him moved in any of your ppr leagues? For what?

You waited 4 weeks and now you're going to shop him? If he doesn't play this week, he's going to be back next week or the one after. Bad move to trade him, IMO

That's fine, I hope he comes back strong, but there may be no better time to shop him then right before he comes back? What's to say he isn't the same? Back surgery, no workouts, infection, arm surgery who knows. His value could drop quite a bit. I'll be shopping him or Cameron, and am trying to figure out what people have seen him go for...

Having Cameron changes things, I guess. You have two solid TE's. Most people drafted Gronk early then drafted another late for the first couple weeks. I'm sure that's what you did too, and drafted Cameron has worked out better than expected. Anyone else who drafted Cook, or another are not as lucky, and shouldn't be looking to trade right before he comes back.

As for him being the same, of course we don't know what will happen. But if I had to guess between him regaining his dominant form and him NOT coming back the same, I will go with him regaining his original form.

ETA: It can't be overlooked how much Brady trusts Gronk in the redzone. He will be a beast this year, especially with a bunch of young, unproven WR's & TE's (or injured vets) that make up the rest of the roster.

 

[T with T]

looks like Gronk is gonna miss this week to according to SI.com... I hope these idiots are wrong... I remember reading a clippit saying he would miss week 3 but definately was gonna play week 4.... Why is his return being delayed is there some set backs that we haven't heard of???? All the news I was hearing was good and he was improving and practicing. This report is somewhat shocking if he was 50-50 last week and now he is still not expected to play this week?? what's the deal.

 

[northwoods]

looks like Gronk is gonna miss this week to according to SI.com... I hope these idiots are wrong... I remember reading a clippit saying he would miss week 3 but definately was gonna play week 4.... Why is his return being delayed is there some set backs that we haven't heard of???? All the news I was hearing was good and he was improving and practicing. This report is somewhat shocking if he was 50-50 last week and now he is still not expected to play this week?? what's the deal.

At this rate, Amendola might play before Gronk...never thought that would happen.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Last week, we were told that the back was not an issue. That it was his forearm strength. So what's the litmus test? Does he have to be able to do an extended set of forearm curls to get cleared? Bench press reps? What's the projected timetable on Gronk being strong enough to play? If it were a playoff game, would they still keep him under wraps? I'm like most others in here never thinking it possible he could miss game 4, especially after teasing us with a possible role in week 3.

 

[VikingFrog]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Just making sure I understand the concept of this rule change. You have Cook and Gronk. You enter your starting lineup with Gronk. Cook scores 10 on you Thursday night but doesn't count. All the games are played Sunday then an hour before the game Gronk get declared inactive. Sometime after that the commish goes in and forces Cook along with his 10 pts back into your starting lineup? Sound right? I'm not sure if I like that or not. The Gronk owner in me would love that today but I'm not sure how I would feel if I was up 9 and my opponant backs into 10 points to beat me.

WE just allow changes to the lineups up until the start of each game. This week, for instance, I have Gronk in my flex but have Bolden sitting on the bench. If I didn't have Bolden I would have picked up Pierre Thomas from Monday night or the recently dropped Sudfield or whoever.

I am leaning toward the alternate scenario actually increasing the randomness and luck. The way we play it seems to make you make the tough choice and plan. Even as I type this though I am intrigued by that rule.

You understand the rule correctly. The conditional request has to be submitted before either player plays, and once one player goes, both players get locked. This prevents anyone from gaming the system (and you have to be strict when crafting the rule, because the system is ripe for gaming). After that, if the later player is inactive, you retroactively go in and put the earlier player into the lineup, instead.

Again, it's really about putting everyone on a level playing field. If Gronk was playing Thursday, you could wait to see if he was active before deciding whether to start him or sit him. Since Gronk is playing on Sunday night, you cannot. Conditional lineups give everyone the same opportunity regardless of whether their player plays in an early game or a late game. It gives everyone the opportunity to say "If this guy is going, I'm going to start him, and if he's not I'm going to roll with my backup, instead". It allows you to play your best lineup out of all of your players who are healthy enough to play.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If he does miss week 4 I'm thinking there had to be a set-back that we were not aware of....if not they would have put him on the PUP

 

[Raiderfan32904]

"Conditional lineups" rule is friggin weak. Part of the fun of fantasy football is the strategy and risk of benching one player for another based on injury risk. A savvy owner could go out and get Charles Clay and keep him on ice till Sunday Night when Gronk is officially declared inactive, then make the switch. Might as well play best ball to allow retroactive Cook points to be legal. I'd want nothing to do with a league like that.

 

[5Rings]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

 

[MNTom]

looks like Gronk is gonna miss this week to according to SI.com... I hope these idiots are wrong... I remember reading a clippit saying he would miss week 3 but definately was gonna play week 4.... Why is his return being delayed is there some set backs that we haven't heard of???? All the news I was hearing was good and he was improving and practicing. This report is somewhat shocking if he was 50-50 last week and now he is still not expected to play this week?? what's the deal.

All reports of Gronk not playing this week go back to Profootballtalk.com as the source. No other independent sources have been sited including no local sources.

 

[Rand al Thor]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

 

[Bayhawks]

looks like Gronk is gonna miss this week to according to SI.com... I hope these idiots are wrong... I remember reading a clippit saying he would miss week 3 but definately was gonna play week 4.... Why is his return being delayed is there some set backs that we haven't heard of???? All the news I was hearing was good and he was improving and practicing. This report is somewhat shocking if he was 50-50 last week and now he is still not expected to play this week?? what's the deal.

All reports of Gronk not playing this week go back to Profootballtalk.com as the source. No other independent sources have been sited including no local sources.

I thought Schefter reported that he was not likely to play?

 

[MNTom]

looks like Gronk is gonna miss this week to according to SI.com... I hope these idiots are wrong... I remember reading a clippit saying he would miss week 3 but definately was gonna play week 4.... Why is his return being delayed is there some set backs that we haven't heard of???? All the news I was hearing was good and he was improving and practicing. This report is somewhat shocking if he was 50-50 last week and now he is still not expected to play this week?? what's the deal.

All reports of Gronk not playing this week go back to Profootballtalk.com as the source. No other independent sources have been sited including no local sources.

I thought Schefter reported that he was not likely to play?

Possibly for week 3. But I have seen nothing from Shefter regarding week 4.

 

[menobrown]

Mike Reiss tweeted about 4 hours ago it was his guess Gronk would be questionable and not play.

And this from Ian Rapoport about 45 minutes ago:

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 45m

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

These are two fairly well plugged in people and one saying is guessing he's not going to play and other saying no decision yet and IMO implying that maybe it's Gronk that's not feeling ready.

At this point, even if he travels I think I have no choice but to bench him since I have no other TE option after noon. If he ends up playing I'll just be relieved he's back.

 

[JShare87]

@shalisemyoung: maybe it's a sign, maybe it's not, but Gronk's travel bag has shoulder pads, etc in it

 

[Ace zero1]

When are they traveling?

 

[5Rings]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

No kidding. Thanks for the info, I was not aware of that.

 

[elbowrm]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Gronk pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

 

[ebsteelers]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Gronk pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

I heard he hurt his forearm again fist pumping!

 

[mikel0254]

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Gronk pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Save Gronk!

 

[craer]

Signs not optimistic according to Boston Herald, apparently different source than Profootball?

"Even though his bag was packed, as of right now, the signs are "not optimistic" with respect to tight end Rob Gronkowski playing Sunday night in Atlanta, accoding to a source. This falls in line with a report Pro Football Talk first made last night, stating the same, that while his status was yet to be determined, the current outlook was not good for him playing and getting his first action of the year Sunday night in the Georgia Dome."

 

[MoveToSkypager]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

I don't know how smart Derrick Brooks is. I do know that being an Academic All American doesn't define it though. Academic All Americans also only need to meet a 3.3 GPA (in any major). After that, it's a subjective selection. You can see by the list that they choose student athletes that have more success in their sport than academically. I also don't want to criticize anyone's academic passion, but he studied communications. A 3.3 in communications is not a challenge at all. He might be smart, but it's not because the reasons you stated.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Again, it's really about putting everyone on a level playing field. If Gronk was playing Thursday, you could wait to see if he was active before deciding whether to start him or sit him. Since Gronk is playing on Sunday night, you cannot. Conditional lineups give everyone the same opportunity regardless of whether their player plays in an early game or a late game. It gives everyone the opportunity to say "If this guy is going, I'm going to start him, and if he's not I'm going to roll with my backup, instead". It allows you to play your best lineup out of all of your players who are healthy enough to play.

... though I will say it gets a little strange when you watch your designated alternate go out there at 1pm, put up 20 points, then have to actively root for your starter not to suit up for the night game.

"No, really ... you gotta think about sittin' this one out, my man. Don't rush back. Let the healing process do its thing. Say, was that a strange pop I just heard from your elbow joint?"

 

[Rand al Thor]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

I don't know how smart Derrick Brooks is. I do know that being an Academic All American doesn't define it though. Academic All Americans also only need to meet a 3.3 GPA (in any major). After that, it's a subjective selection. You can see by the list that they choose student athletes that have more success in their sport than academically. I also don't want to criticize anyone's academic passion, but he studied communications. A 3.3 in communications is not a challenge at all. He might be smart, but it's not because the reasons you stated.

Fine. I've met him on several occasions. The man is a gentleman and a scholar and I challenge you to find one report to the contrary.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

I don't know how smart Derrick Brooks is. I do know that being an Academic All American doesn't define it though. Academic All Americans also only need to meet a 3.3 GPA (in any major). After that, it's a subjective selection. You can see by the list that they choose student athletes that have more success in their sport than academically. I also don't want to criticize anyone's academic passion, but he studied communications. A 3.3 in communications is not a challenge at all. He might be smart, but it's not because the reasons you stated.

Fine. I've met him on several occasions. The man is a gentleman and a scholar and I challenge you to find one report to the contrary.

If you would read my post, you'd see that I never said he wasn't smart. I just said that award isn't proof that he is. Calm down.

 

[Premier]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

I don't know how smart Derrick Brooks is. I do know that being an Academic All American doesn't define it though. Academic All Americans also only need to meet a 3.3 GPA (in any major). After that, it's a subjective selection. You can see by the list that they choose student athletes that have more success in their sport than academically. I also don't want to criticize anyone's academic passion, but he studied communications. A 3.3 in communications is not a challenge at all. He might be smart, but it's not because the reasons you stated.

He's a pretty smart guy. He's on the board of trustees at Florida State and it's not an honorary position or anything. He also owns the local arena league team and seems to be a pretty good businessman.

 

[Slugg]

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

 

[Level 3 Offenders]

Ben Volin just tweeted:

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

 

[Lionz will turn it around!]

Per Rotoworld:

sucks you can't copy and past any more but what ^^^^they above say.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

They are saying on NFL Network that he's likely to play.

Plenty of conflicting reports and I think we should know more after today.

The Sirius hosts--now mind you, it was Derrick Brooks, not the sharpest tool in the shed--said he was playing this weekend.

Though he may not speak eloquently, Derrick Brooks was an academic all american at college and is actually quite intelligent. Having said that, I'm sure he knows no more than anybody as to whether Gronk will play this week or not.

I don't know how smart Derrick Brooks is. I do know that being an Academic All American doesn't define it though. Academic All Americans also only need to meet a 3.3 GPA (in any major). After that, it's a subjective selection. You can see by the list that they choose student athletes that have more success in their sport than academically. I also don't want to criticize anyone's academic passion, but he studied communications. A 3.3 in communications is not a challenge at all. He might be smart, but it's not because the reasons you stated.

He's a pretty smart guy. He's on the board of trustees at Florida State and it's not an honorary position or anything. He also owns the local arena league team and seems to be a pretty good businessman.

Thanks. That is more meaningful than the earlier post.

 

[buck naked]

Belichick probably gets a chubby just thinking about all the uncertainty he is creating about his players and their playing status.

 

[moviedude25]

Per Rotoworld:

sucks you can't copy and past any more but what ^^^^they above say.

Yes you can

Citing a source, the Boston Globe reports Rob Gronkowski (questionable, back) and Danny Amendola (questionable, groin) are both tentatively expected to play Sunday night against the Falcons.

We're not sure what to think at this point; Profootballtalk.com reported Thursday Gronkowski was unlikely to face the Falcons, while beat writers throughout the week have operated as if Amendola needs one more week off. "As of today, they are playing," the source told the Globe. "But a lot of time between now and Sunday night." We hope to get some clarity on the situation Saturday, when injury-report players are often downgraded to out if they don't make the trip. Sunday night's game against the Falcons will be in the Georgia Dome. Sep 27 - 4:11 PM


I have Gronk and can't start him this week. If he doesn't play all of the days games are over and both Clay and Graham are rostered.

 

[BassNBrew]

Thought something big had gone down given all the replies in this thread.