Jump to content


Gronkowski


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#51 rajncajn

rajncajn

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,756 posts
  • Fan of the:Saints

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:34 PM

View Posttazinib1, on 19 November 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

:huh:
A DT running sideways is not going to beat a CB with 4.4 speed to the edge. He'll blow right past him on his way to the kicker. The point is, teams must carry so many backups at certain positions and all those players may not be able to play or may suck at special teams, therefore starters like Gronkowski must also play special teams.

#52 tazinib1

tazinib1

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 19,204 posts
  • Location:Burbank,Ca.
  • Fan of the:Chargers

Posted 19 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

A blocked punt is so rare that I would give Gronk a rest on the bench in favor of a guy who does it for a living. It's 1 play...

#53 stevegrab

stevegrab

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,663 posts
  • Location:Akron Ohio
  • Fan of the:Browns

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

View Postrajncajn, on 19 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

A DT running sideways is not going to beat a CB with 4.4 speed to the edge. He'll blow right past him on his way to the kicker. The point is, teams must carry so many backups at certain positions and all those players may not be able to play or may suck at special teams, therefore starters like Gronkowski must also play special teams.

Backup non star players should be able to play special teams, or not be on the team. I'm not a Gronk owner but find it strange that such a star player is required to work regularly on special teams. I do recognize that the starting OL is used for PAT and FG plays, and some other big guys to block. I know that some big DL work on PAT to attempt the block.

Obviously these are not high risk, but it didn't help that they were piling on the points at this point, and a blocked PAT meant nothing. Losing Gronk for 4-6 games could be huge (although I don't know who else is going to win that division).

The reason many teams use the punter now as the holder instead of a backup QB stems from the problem you have when the backup becomes the starter and the additional injury risk (any play on the field in the NFL) if they're the holder.

I just wonder how many players with Gronk's offensive contribution are regulars on special teams as well.

#54 rajncajn

rajncajn

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,756 posts
  • Fan of the:Saints

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:22 PM

View Poststevegrab, on 19 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Backup non star players should be able to play special teams, or not be on the team. I'm not a Gronk owner but find it strange that such a star player is required to work regularly on special teams. I do recognize that the starting OL is used for PAT and FG plays, and some other big guys to block. I know that some big DL work on PAT to attempt the block.

Obviously these are not high risk, but it didn't help that they were piling on the points at this point, and a blocked PAT meant nothing. Losing Gronk for 4-6 games could be huge (although I don't know who else is going to win that division).

The reason many teams use the punter now as the holder instead of a backup QB stems from the problem you have when the backup becomes the starter and the additional injury risk (any play on the field in the NFL) if they're the holder.

I just wonder how many players with Gronk's offensive contribution are regulars on special teams as well.

I would bet it's far more often than most people realize. This past week I was kinda surprised when Mark Ingram was flagged for defensive off sides working as an outside rusher on the punt team. Really, I think folks are just making a bit too much out of Gronk getting hurt on that play. The odds on breaking an arm while making a block are probably far less than getting hit by a DB or LB on a tackle.

#55 nelsosi

nelsosi

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,109 posts
  • Location:Toronto
  • Fan of the:Seahawks

Posted 19 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

Ingram is exactly the kind of player that I would expect to see working special teams.

#56 rajncajn

rajncajn

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,756 posts
  • Fan of the:Saints

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

Any updates anyone can find would be helpful. Trying to decide if it's safe to drop him.

#57 darin3

darin3

    Hall of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,656 posts
  • Location:Goin' back to Cali... Cali...
  • Fan of the:Bears

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:32 PM

View Postrajncajn, on 27 November 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

Any updates anyone can find would be helpful. Trying to decide if it's safe to drop him.
He's still pushing for a Week 14 return, but I'd guess that he'll be ready Week 15.  Now, his effectiveness that week will certainly be the big question (if he can even go).  I own him in a league that I *really* need him in, so I'm watching this carefully.  If he DOES return Week 15, I would be skeptical in starting him unless the reports out of the week's practice indicate he's practicing in full.  And of course, knowing the Patriots, there will be limited, if any, information on that.

#58 rajncajn

rajncajn

    Huddler Hall Of Fame

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,756 posts
  • Fan of the:Saints

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:51 PM

View Postdarin3, on 27 November 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

He's still pushing for a Week 14 return, but I'd guess that he'll be ready Week 15.  Now, his effectiveness that week will certainly be the big question (if he can even go).  I own him in a league that I *really* need him in, so I'm watching this carefully.  If he DOES return Week 15, I would be skeptical in starting him unless the reports out of the week's practice indicate he's practicing in full.  And of course, knowing the Patriots, there will be limited, if any, information on that.
Yeah, my other TE is Marcedes Lewis who's been decent with Henne, but saying you don't really need Gronk is like saying you don't really need a foot. You might be able to get by without him, but... My biggest fear of course is that I'll drop him for another player and he'll return just in time to blow up in the fantasy playoffs and he's sitting on an opponents roster. I'm in the same boat with Demarco Murray as well. :bash:

#59 e5volcano

e5volcano

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 359 posts
  • Fan of the:Packers

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:31 AM

Looks like sources claiming that Gronk will return next week against Jags, he was practicing this week but was inactive

For fantasy owners who are in the playoffs,will you dare risk starting him?

#60 irish

irish

    Huddler All-Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17,675 posts
  • Location:Jersey
  • Interests:Loving my wife, 2 beautiful kids, and my little miracle, Colin. Enjoy my gorgeous house and be thankful for everyday that I have the opportunity to make more happy memories!
  • Fan of the:Cowboys

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:54 AM

View Poste5volcano, on 17 December 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

Looks like sources claiming that Gronk will return next week against Jags, he was practicing this week but was inactive

For fantasy owners who are in the playoffs,will you dare risk starting him?

I was hoping he wouldn't this way Hernandez had another great week in him for the SB.

#61 e5volcano

e5volcano

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 359 posts
  • Fan of the:Packers

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:43 AM

Well for me, since I am in a smaller league I am fortunate enough to own both Gronk and Hernandez and if Gronk is going to play, it puts me in a pickle of whether or not I should start both (one as flex) or sub one out for a better option

#62 3rd and schlong

3rd and schlong

    Huddler

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Fan of the:Steelers

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:11 AM

in BLNY, a 16 team league, if he's active im starting him 100%. The chance for a td is too high to pass up




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users