Reported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
Reported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
Noone is interested in seeing anyone elses roster. People are interested in showing them.Nobody is asking any questions about their teams, no assistance is needed, requested, nor desired.Somebody was just curious to see the teams of others who had drafted him, and who the stand-in TE was.AC forum guysStop posting your teams...no one gives a crap.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonReported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
To be clear this article reports that "Gronkowski isn't expected to be ready for the season-opener Sept. 8 against the Buffalo Bills"http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonReported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
that article is from 8:30 am today, before he hit the field and practiced.To be clear this article reports that "Gronkowski isn't expected to be ready for the season-opener Sept. 8 against the Buffalo Bills"http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonReported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
This one is from 7:19PM Sept 1:that article is from 8:30 am today, before he hit the field and practiced.To be clear this article reports that "Gronkowski isn't expected to be ready for the season-opener Sept. 8 against the Buffalo Bills"http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonReported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
Got a funny feeling hes playing, and playing soon
NFL coaches don't approach the games like. oh it buffalo and nyjets, auto-wins. Its the NFL every game is important and could be the difference in HFA in the playoffs
I disagree here. If he comes back week 7ish and puts up typical type Gronk numbers he could play a huge factor in winning a title. There are plenty of TE2s to cover for a few weeks, but a healthy Gronk provides such an advantage it's worth the risk IMO.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
Then stay out of this thread if it bothers you so much.I think seeing what a team that drafts Gronk looks like definitely shows what you can expect to sacrifice for the risk you'd be buying into.Noone is interested in seeing anyone elses roster. People are interested in showing them.Nobody is asking any questions about their teams, no assistance is needed, requested, nor desired.Somebody was just curious to see the teams of others who had drafted him, and who the stand-in TE was.AC forum guysStop posting your teams...no one gives a crap.
Go do a mock if you want to see what your team may look like. I don't understand how looking at some stranger's roster in a league which may differ in size, scoring and lineup will help you.Then stay out of this thread if it bothers you so much.I think seeing what a team that drafts Gronk looks like definitely shows what you can expect to sacrifice for the risk you'd be buying into.Noone is interested in seeing anyone elses roster. People are interested in showing them.Nobody is asking any questions about their teams, no assistance is needed, requested, nor desired.Somebody was just curious to see the teams of others who had drafted him, and who the stand-in TE was.AC forum guysStop posting your teams...no one gives a crap.
Say he busts. I'd rather get an idea beforehand what the rest of such a team can be expected. All drafts will be unique, but it at least is an indicator of his current perceived value and the resulting impact on one's overall roster.
That would NOT be a complete waste of a pick.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
Mocks are great...except that a lot of people draft differently in mocks than they would for real. People just throw #### at the wall to see what sticks, they leave after the first handful of rounds, they troll with stupid senseless picks, they draft WR/WR/WR just to see what would happen (as if they couldn't tell) and then leave when they realize it sucks...and that's assuming you find a mock with the same scoring system, same roster requirements, and same types of players as your real league.Go do a mock if you want to see what your team may look like. I don't understand how looking at some stranger's roster in a league which may differ in size, scoring and lineup will help you.Then stay out of this thread if it bothers you so much.I think seeing what a team that drafts Gronk looks like definitely shows what you can expect to sacrifice for the risk you'd be buying into.Noone is interested in seeing anyone elses roster. People are interested in showing them.Nobody is asking any questions about their teams, no assistance is needed, requested, nor desired.Somebody was just curious to see the teams of others who had drafted him, and who the stand-in TE was.AC forum guysStop posting your teams...no one gives a crap.
Say he busts. I'd rather get an idea beforehand what the rest of such a team can be expected. All drafts will be unique, but it at least is an indicator of his current perceived value and the resulting impact on one's overall roster.
week 7? Why would he sit till then? He's practicing now.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
Where are you getting week 7 from? They would have put him on the PUP and added another player to the active roster if that was the case (and perhaps not cut Fells or Ballard)I disagree here. If he comes back week 7ish and puts up typical type Gronk numbers he could play a huge factor in winning a title. There are plenty of TE2s to cover for a few weeks, but a healthy Gronk provides such an advantage it's worth the risk IMO.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
I kinda wouldnt expect to use him till closer to week 7. I mean, he may come back and play in week 3 or 4............but are you going to have him in your lineup right away? I generally don't like to play guys coming off a long injury layoff for a week or 2. In his case, I might just wait till he has a good game before using him.Where are you getting week 7 from? They would have put him on the PUP and added another player to the active roster if that was the case (and perhaps not cut Fells or Ballard)I disagree here. If he comes back week 7ish and puts up typical type Gronk numbers he could play a huge factor in winning a title. There are plenty of TE2s to cover for a few weeks, but a healthy Gronk provides such an advantage it's worth the risk IMO.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
If Gronk is playing, I'm playing him, and I wouldn't really think twice about it. Even if he isn't 100% he has a better shot of any other TE of catching a TD. If you're waiting until week 7 you wasted a draft pick. People took the same stance on Peterson last year, and if I remember correctly, he had a heck of a game. I agree, wait a couple of weeks on a lesser talent, but we're talking about a stud on an offense that will have plenty of opportunities.I kinda wouldnt expect to use him till closer to week 7. I mean, he may come back and play in week 3 or 4............but are you going to have him in your lineup right away? I generally don't like to play guys coming off a long injury layoff for a week or 2. In his case, I might just wait till he has a good game before using him.Where are you getting week 7 from? They would have put him on the PUP and added another player to the active roster if that was the case (and perhaps not cut Fells or Ballard)I disagree here. If he comes back week 7ish and puts up typical type Gronk numbers he could play a huge factor in winning a title. There are plenty of TE2s to cover for a few weeks, but a healthy Gronk provides such an advantage it's worth the risk IMO.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
So yeah, he will definitely play before week 7, but will be in all lineups by week 4 or so??
If you league has playoffs.............then waiting till week 7 is NOT a waste of a pick. If you do make the playoffs (assuming you get him much later than if he were healthy now), you have yourself a nice advantage.If Gronk is playing, I'm playing him, and I wouldn't really think twice about it. Even if he isn't 100% he has a better shot of any other TE of catching a TD. If you're waiting until week 7 you wasted a draft pick. People took the same stance on Peterson last year, and if I remember correctly, he had a heck of a game. I agree, wait a couple of weeks on a lesser talent, but we're talking about a stud on an offense that will have plenty of opportunities.
I see what your saying, but if he's on the field, who are you starting over him? Personally it's only Jimmy Graham, and then there are very few players I would start over him at the flex. Maybe I just take more risk than you, but I still think it's a waste of a draft pick to not have him in your lineup if he's on the field.If you league has playoffs.............then waiting till week 7 is NOT a waste of a pick. If you do make the playoffs (assuming you get him much later than if he were healthy now), you have yourself a nice advantage.If Gronk is playing, I'm playing him, and I wouldn't really think twice about it. Even if he isn't 100% he has a better shot of any other TE of catching a TD. If you're waiting until week 7 you wasted a draft pick. People took the same stance on Peterson last year, and if I remember correctly, he had a heck of a game. I agree, wait a couple of weeks on a lesser talent, but we're talking about a stud on an offense that will have plenty of opportunities.
And chances are if you team is championship material, you would be able to sneak into the playoffs without Gronk till week 7 and only getting about 6-7 regular season (fantasy regular season) games out of him
I drafted him on 9/1 at 1pm ET at 5.06 after the news of his practicing. Thinking more like week 3 return which was worth gamble there.That would NOT be a complete waste of a pick.It may not be the ROI you hoped for if you took him early, but it seems like most people drafted him fully understanding he might miss 6+ games.Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
I want to see their rostersNoone is interested in seeing anyone elses roster. People are interested in showing them.Nobody is asking any questions about their teams, no assistance is needed, requested, nor desired.Somebody was just curious to see the teams of others who had drafted him, and who the stand-in TE was.AC forum guysStop posting your teams...no one gives a crap.
And what part of that blurb do you consider a conclusive report that he won't play? Where is the actual information? Because all I see is speculation.This one is from 7:19PM Sept 1:that article is from 8:30 am today, before he hit the field and practiced.Got a funny feeling hes playing, and playing soonTo be clear this article reports that "Gronkowski isn't expected to be ready for the season-opener Sept. 8 against the Buffalo Bills"http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonReported by whom?It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.He'll be playing week 1
NFL coaches don't approach the games like. oh it buffalo and nyjets, auto-wins. Its the NFL every game is important and could be the difference in HFA in the playoffs
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9624968/rob-gronkowski-full-pads-new-england-patriots-practice
"While it is not considered a realistic expectation for Gronkowski to be ready for the regular-season opener Sept. 8 on the road against the Buffalo Bills, or the home opener against the Jets the following Thursday, his presence on the practice field Sunday reflects that he continues to make progress in his rehabilitation, and might be ready to transition from a rehab-specific focus to more football-specific drills."
I think he just likes messing with me by keeping a "D" next to Gronk's name instead of an "O" so I can't put him in my IR slot.Any chance BB just sacrificed the roster spot to mess with the opponents gameplanning and preparation?
He is a sneaky dude, & maybe in his opinion it's worth a roster spot for defensive cord to have to worry about Gronk even if he won't be playing.
Ha, I have the same problem with Le'veon Bell. Obviously, he's not playing week one so why can't they just put an O for him so I can stash him on IR....I think he just likes messing with me by keeping a "D" next to Gronk's name instead of an "O" so I can't put him in my IR slot.Any chance BB just sacrificed the roster spot to mess with the opponents gameplanning and preparation?
He is a sneaky dude, & maybe in his opinion it's worth a roster spot for defensive cord to have to worry about Gronk even if he won't be playing.
Some of you are trying waaaaayy too hard to manufacture reasons to argue that Gronk won't have significant value.fantasycurse42 said:Any chance BB just sacrificed the roster spot to mess with the opponents gameplanning and preparation?
He is a sneaky dude, & maybe in his opinion it's worth a roster spot for defensive cord to have to worry about Gronk even if he won't be playing.
Bayhawks,Bayhawks said:And what part of that blurb do you consider a conclusive report that he won't play? Where is the actual information? Because all I see is speculation.Tango said:This one is from 7:19PM Sept 1:bicycle_seat_sniffer said:that article is from 8:30 am today, before he hit the field and practiced.Got a funny feeling hes playing, and playing soonTango said:To be clear this article reports that "Gronkowski isn't expected to be ready for the season-opener Sept. 8 against the Buffalo Bills"wdcrob said:http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9618889/new-england-patriots-keep-rob-gronkowski-active-roster-open-seasonmbuehner said:Reported by whom?wdcrob said:It was reported yesterday he won't play week one or week two. I think at this point it's worth believing what they tell us, since it's been pretty close to 100% accurate so far.Bigboy10182000 said:He'll be playing week 1
NFL coaches don't approach the games like. oh it buffalo and nyjets, auto-wins. Its the NFL every game is important and could be the difference in HFA in the playoffs
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9624968/rob-gronkowski-full-pads-new-england-patriots-practice
"While it is not considered a realistic expectation for Gronkowski to be ready for the regular-season opener Sept. 8 on the road against the Buffalo Bills, or the home opener against the Jets the following Thursday, his presence on the practice field Sunday reflects that he continues to make progress in his rehabilitation, and might be ready to transition from a rehab-specific focus to more football-specific drills."
I own Gronk in both of my leagues - one league I split with my bro and we own him there. Oh yea, my bro also owns him in his league... WE ARE ALL IN ON GRONK!Some of you are trying waaaaayy too hard to manufacture reasons to argue that Gronk won't have significant value.fantasycurse42 said:Any chance BB just sacrificed the roster spot to mess with the opponents gameplanning and preparation?
He is a sneaky dude, & maybe in his opinion it's worth a roster spot for defensive cord to have to worry about Gronk even if he won't be playing.
he will be back before week 7 idiots... obviously he would have been on pup list if that was the case... Use your heads.. should be back week 2,3 and honestly with the way the pats are I woudln't be surprised if he plays week 1, he is already practicing.finito said:I disagree here. If he comes back week 7ish and puts up typical type Gronk numbers he could play a huge factor in winning a title. There are plenty of TE2s to cover for a few weeks, but a healthy Gronk provides such an advantage it's worth the risk IMO.oswizzle said:Staying far away from this drama.. if NE plays well without him...they will be in Zero Rush to get him back on the field... and if he sits out till week 7... that's a complete waste of a pick if you took him early
I have been the main person arguing this exact thing across the entirety of this thread. The best I can offer for anyone on either side is each case is different and outcomes will vary from person to person.My Question:
How confident is anyone that the Gronk we see in 2013 is the one we've seen before? It would seem like he's at the top end of the timeline for recovery but as with any back injury, the process of building core strength is an ongoing one. If he comes back this month, while he might be 100% structurally and healed so to speak, is he 100% of the player he has been?
I think there are some caveats to what you bring up:It's a good question, and nobody knows. And I'm coming at this from a dynasty perspective, where 80% of Gronk is likely going to be better than my other options. Which isn't true in redraft.
Having said that, Gronk has several things going for him:
--his surgery was in 2013 and the range of surgeries in the studies was from 1996 to 2010
--he's 24 years old, and it's almost certain that some of the players in the study were near the end of their careers
--he had the surgery before the issue was bad enough to prevent him from playing
--he's had the surgery previously and obviously returned to 100% -- it seemingly had no effect
--he's an uber-elite player and even losing 5%-10% might not change much
--all indications are that he's closer to the front end of that range than the back end
I think people are being too cautious -- that's about an optimistic scenario as you could construct.
Well considering I took him round 6. It will only make my season. If its a bust it isn't a big dealgronk is either gonna win a lot of people leagues.. or help alot of people finish in last
I think the trick here is having a 2nd TE in TE leagues; either in draft or WW have a backup plan.Well considering I took him round 6. It will only make my season. If its a bust it isn't a big dealgronk is either gonna win a lot of people leagues.. or help alot of people finish in last
The timeline of his college surgery, it kind of smells like he/his team was at that point getting ready for the draft. The 12 week timeline put him right up against the bowl game, and he didn't play in it. Next deadline was the combine, which he didn't participate in. Now, I do wonder if he was ready to go, and they just took an extra few weeks. Reason I say that is, he held his pro day, and crushed it. So he wasn't ready to go at the combine, and was a monster a few weeks later. He would not have been the first player to skip the combine to look good at the pro day.I think there are some caveats to what you bring up:It's a good question, and nobody knows. And I'm coming at this from a dynasty perspective, where 80% of Gronk is likely going to be better than my other options. Which isn't true in redraft.
Having said that, Gronk has several things going for him:
--his surgery was in 2013 and the range of surgeries in the studies was from 1996 to 2010
--he's 24 years old, and it's almost certain that some of the players in the study were near the end of their careers
--he had the surgery before the issue was bad enough to prevent him from playing
--he's had the surgery previously and obviously returned to 100% -- it seemingly had no effect
--he's an uber-elite player and even losing 5%-10% might not change much
--all indications are that he's closer to the front end of that range than the back end
I think people are being too cautious -- that's about an optimistic scenario as you could construct.
1) This is the second major back surgery Gronk has had to rehab from.
2) His first surgery occurred in September 2009. From what I've read, it was the same type of surgery. He missed the 2009 college season and was still not ready to go for the NFL combine 5 months later. So while he did come back from it...in terms of playing actual football, he was given almost a full year. Would that 1st surgery have had some effect on his on-field performance if he was coming back 12-14 weeks later versus 40-50?
i agree Rob, would they let him even take part in full contract drills if there was a chance of re-injury? Football game shape is a different animal I agree with.Also, I'm not saying there's no risk or anything. I just think people are overblowing it and the overall tone is leaning the wrong way. We've got tons of reasons to feel pretty good about where he's at and, given what happened this summer, not very much negative info.
I guess my point is that being ready to play from a health standpoint and being 'Gronk' aren't mutually exclusive.I hear what you're saying and the five months that elapsed from his first surgery to the combine is a good point.
I think at the end of the day I believe that the medical team's incentives are aligned with protecting their $50m asset, and that they aren't going to throw him on the field if he's not ready to play or is greater risk of long-term injury. And literally everything since the surgery has lined up with a full recovery at 12 weeks to this point. So that informs the other stuff I posted earlier.
ETA: worth mentioning that Week 3 is almost 14 weeks removed from the surgery.