LOVEMESOMEBILLS Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Not anywhere close to impossible to prove. You look at their record with him and without him. Tom's win percentage for his career is 77%, the 29 games they played without Gronk 76%. 1
Estelle Getty Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 Just wanted to chime in to say see ya later dbag...no respect for old gronk and enjoy dealing with all of the injuries your body has incurred. 1
SouthNYfan Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, Doc said: You’d think a GOAT TE would have some effect on his team winning and losing. The fact is, he doesn’t. That and far fewer years than TG says he’s not the GOAT at TE. Maybe having 3-4 more 1,000 yards seasons or another 5 years playing at a high level, sure. Reading is hard for you. He had a significant effect on their offense. I guess the back that they went something like 19-5 without Brady during his injury and suspension means that Brady isn't that important to their winning either, right? 14 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said: Tom's win percentage for his career is 77%, the 29 games they played without Gronk 76%. The pats are like 79% without Brady. Guess he's not important either, right??
dave mcbride Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 48 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said: I hear ya about the longevity and guys hanging around to break records, that's why I don't think Emmitt is the best RB & why I think Barry is the best, even though he only played 10 years. Jim Brown was obviously really good, but the players weren't the same as they have been for the last 25-30 years(And getting better by the year)When you say, when he was on the field he was utterly dominant, I agree for some of his career and disagree in other parts. Always a great blocker, but when just as much, if not more, of your job is to catch passes and rack up yards and in 44% of the years you played you fail to hit 700 yards receiving, to me that doesn't say dominant. Don't get me wrong there were times I didn't think anyone could stop him, but there just wasn't a long enough stretch of that play, in my opinion. With him not being able to crack the top 100 in receiving yards, I just can't do it. I appreciate the discussion Dave, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Fair enough. We can agree to disagree - I'm good with that!
SouthNYfan Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 58 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said: I hear ya about the longevity and guys hanging around to break records, that's why I don't think Emmitt is the best RB & why I think Barry is the best, even though he only played 10 years. Jim Brown was obviously really good, but the players weren't the same as they have been for the last 25-30 years(And getting better by the year)When you say, when he was on the field he was utterly dominant, I agree for some of his career and disagree in other parts. Always a great blocker, but when just as much, if not more, of your job is to catch passes and rack up yards and in 44% of the years you played you fail to hit 700 yards receiving, to me that doesn't say dominant. Don't get me wrong there were times I didn't think anyone could stop him, but there just wasn't a long enough stretch of that play, in my opinion. With him not being able to crack the top 100 in receiving yards, I just can't do it. I appreciate the discussion Dave, but on this I think we'll have to agree to disagree. He failed to hit 700 yards because he didn't play die to injury He was dominant when he played You can say you think longevity and availability (or lack of both) count against him, but he was dominant when he played
Spiderweb Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 5 hours ago, Joe in Winslow said: Still doesn't excuse him using his bionic arm to try and cripple a guy with a cheap shot to the neck. Sure, it's "just one play" to paraphrase @Gugny, but man. That's just filthy. I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh..
Doc Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 51 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Reading is hard for you. He had a significant effect on their offense. I guess the back that they went something like 19-5 without Brady during his injury and suspension means that Brady isn't that important to their winning either, right? The pats are like 79% without Brady. Guess he's not important either, right?? Thinking is hard for you. The idea is to win games. An impact player, much less a GOAT player, would significantly impact a team's wins and losses. Gronk didn't. As for Brady and the Cheaters winning without him, that's another discussion entirely.
SouthNYfan Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, Doc said: Thinking is hard for you. The idea is to win games. An impact player, much less a GOAT player, would significantly impact a team's wins and losses. Gronk didn't. As for Brady and the Cheaters winning without him, that's another discussion entirely. Why is it another discussion?? YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key. You brought Brady into it. I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with. Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning.
stosh64 Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Figster said: Never had a problem with Gronk until the elbow to Tre White. Can't stand him now and have zero appreciation for anything Gronk related with the exception of his retirement from the NFL. Agreed.
Jerome007 Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 21 hours ago, White Linen said: His body was clearly breaking down, so what does his wonderful coach do? Rides him and doubles down on his blocking responsibilities. They could have gotten another year or two out of him by making some adjustments but instead they take. I'm glad they did it and to see him go and he's definitely not my kind of person. Nice to know I'm not the only one that noticed this. He did a lot of HARD blocking last year. I mean they won the SB but in regular season games when they were ahead, BB didn't care much. Sad to say, but I think HC have to disregard their players' health or they'd be filled with remorse every week. As for Gronk, yeah I hate the Pats but I don't hate the players. He was a fun dude, hard to do with BB as a coach! What he did to Tre was despicable but neither the Bills players nor the league did anything about it so I won't lose my energy over that.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 43 minutes ago, Spiderweb said: I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh.. ...agreed...he had his moments....certainly the best of his era/last decade...GOAT is a stretch....Gonzo, Gates, Mackey, Winslow Sr, Newsome, Witten etc may not be in agreement...
Doc Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Why is it another discussion?? YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key. You brought Brady into it. I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with. Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning. That's a very real possibility. 1
SouthNYfan Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 44 minutes ago, Doc said: That's a very real possibility. Well. Now that we've insulted each other and gone on about this... If that's your stance on Brady as well then I think we can just agree to disagree, but I think we can both be on board that life in Buffalo and the NFL will be better off without Brady and BB. 1
LOVEMESOMEBILLS Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said: Why is it another discussion?? YOU stated that the pats win the same without gronk, therefore he's not that important, Brady is the key. You brought Brady into it. I showed you a statistic that the pats win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with. Therefore, by your own method of assessment, Brady is not important to them winning. Brady is 207-60 or 77.5%(Including playoffs 237-70 or 77.2%), since Brady has become the starter Bill Belichick's record without Brady starting is 13-6 or 68.4%. I don't know where you got the Pats*** win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with, it's almost 10 percentage points higher with Tom in the lineup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders https://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html
Rocky Landing Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Spiderweb said: I like how Tre got him rilied to begin with. The one game suspension was no where near enough. That's a given. But let's not make Gronk out to be the second coming of Burfict or Suh.. For me, it's a question of loyalty. Burfect, and Suh are defined by their play- dirty. But, neither of them ever elbow-dropped one of our guys. That being said, Gronk did apologize... but still: one of our guys!
Success Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: For me, it's a question of loyalty. Burfect, and Suh are defined by their play- dirty. But, neither of them ever elbow-dropped one of our guys. That being said, Gronk did apologize... but still: one of our guys! I also never saw Suh do anything that could cause serious injury, His offenses were more chippy.
SouthNYfan Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 48 minutes ago, LOVEMESOMEBILLS said: Brady is 207-60 or 77.5%(Including playoffs 237-70 or 77.2%), since Brady has become the starter Bill Belichick's record without Brady starting is 13-6 or 68.4%. I don't know where you got the Pats*** win an identical, if not higher, percentage of the time without Brady than with, it's almost 10 percentage points higher with Tom in the lineup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Football_League_career_quarterback_wins_leaders https://www.footballdb.com/stats/qb-records.html 14-6 if you really want to be technical about Casell went 11-5 It was 0-0 when Brady guy hurt NFL stats say Brady got the win bc he started but Cassel is the reason they won So okay 77.4 vs 70% 7% difference really. Tom is a huge reason, but my point was that with or without Brady they still won a good % of games. Doc was saying that because the win % didn't change drastically without gronk that he wasn't important. The win % not changing drastically without Brady, by his assessment that he applied to gronk, would imply that Brady wasn't that important either. They both were very important and impactful, and looking just at records with vs without doesn't tell the whole picture.
HOUSE Posted March 25, 2019 Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/24/2019 at 6:24 PM, Rico said: Pats, please move up now ahead of #9 and take Hock.
Mr. WEO Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 8 hours ago, John from Riverside said: Without reading through this monster of a thread I am going to hope that somebody posted the video of St. Gronk concussing our starter corner after a play....... And the video of our corner's teammates doing....nothing after that hit. On March 24, 2019 at 6:24 PM, Rico said: Pats, please move up now ahead of #9 and take Hock. Preach Rico!! 1
Recommended Posts