HawkShack.com

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2635 ... retirement

Not even 30 years old! That should make the Pats less formidable.

trents wrote:http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26351121/grateful-gronkowski-announces-retirement

Not even 30 years old! That should make the Pats less formidable.

Yea, but he took a beating. Those big tight ends that make a living catching passes over the middle, matched up against linebackers and free safeties, make for some big, juicy targets. He was smart to cut his losses and get out while he was ahead.

He wasn't one of my top most 10 likeable players, but he was one of if not the best pass catching tight end in his era and a slam dunk first round HOF'er.

How many years did he have? If it is 8 or more, I'd agree with Riv. Under that I think he might be a second or third time HOF'er.

idhawkman wrote:How many years did he have? If it is 8 or more, I'd agree with Riv. Under that I think he might be a second or third time HOF'er.

Gronk played 9 seasons. Here's some of the facts for his resume:

5 Pro Bowls and 3 Super Bowl rings.

4 seasons with 1,000+ receiving yards, tied with the most for his position all time.

Gronk leads all tight ends for most post season receiving yards, receptions, and scores. He's also one of two players (the other being Jerry Rice) to record 20 or more receptions, 200 or more yards, and 3 or more TD's in the Super Bowl.

In 2011, Gronk caught 17 TD passes, most ever for a tight end and 5th for all players.

Since 2010, Gronk has registered 7 games with multiple TD receptions and 100+ receiving yards. Only 4 others, all WR's (Antonio Brown, Jordy Nelson, Megatron, and Julio Jones), have matched that feat during the same time frame.

Like I said, I don't necessarily like the guy or the team that he played for. But you can't deny the obvious: Gronk was the best tight end of his era.

RiverDog wrote:Gronk played 9 seasons. Here's some of the facts for his resume:

5 Pro Bowls and 3 Super Bowl rings.

4 seasons with 1,000+ receiving yards, tied with the most for his position all time.

Gronk leads all tight ends for most post season receiving yards, receptions, and scores. He's also one of two players (the other being Jerry Rice) to record 20 or more receptions, 200 or more yards, and 3 or more TD's in the Super Bowl.

In 2011, Gronk caught 17 TD passes, most ever for a tight end and 5th for all players.

Since 2010, Gronk has registered 7 games with multiple TD receptions and 100+ receiving yards. Only 4 others, all WR's (Antonio Brown, Jordy Nelson, Megatron, and Julio Jones), have matched that feat during the same time frame.

Like I said, I don't necessarily like the guy or the team that he played for. But you can't deny the obvious: Gronk was the best tight end of his era.

Yep. Gronk going to the Hall 1st ballot for sure. He was a freak of a TE. Only hit against him is he was hurt a lot for a big man.

Maybe after a year away he'll come out of retirement like Jason Whitten recently did. He's younger than Whitten.

Yeah, those stats are impressive and even though he was hurt a lot, he run the stats up on championship teams. I was thinking the longevity of Tony G. was more impressive but after that post Riv, I think you are right with the first ballot.

[/quote]yea, but he took a beating. Those big tight ends that make a living catching passes over the middle, matched up against linebackers and free safeties, make for some big, juicy targets. He was smart to cut his losses and get out while he was ahead.

He wasn't one of my top most 10 likeable players, but he was one of if not the best pass catching tight end in his era and a slam dunk first round HOF'er.[/quote]

Riv to be fair, Who was a better Tight end? nobody.

RiverDog wrote:yea, but he took a beating. Those big tight ends that make a living catching passes over the middle, matched up against linebackers and free safeties, make for some big, juicy targets. He was smart to cut his losses and get out while he was ahead.

He wasn't one of my top most 10 likeable players, but he was one of if not the best pass catching tight end in his era and a slam dunk first round HOF'er.

obiken wrote:Riv to be fair, Who was a better Tight end? nobody.

Idahawk mentioned Tony Gonzales, but he didn't have any rings. Gronk has 3. Those count when it comes to HOF induction. And Idahawk, IMO Gronk's records were more of a cause of those championship teams than they were a result of them, and there's no better example than the past SB. It's kinda like discounting Mickey Mantle's 18 World Series home runs by saying that he ran his numbers up by playing for championship teams. Mantle was a huge part of the '50's Yankees just like Gronk was a huge part of the '10's Patriots.

RiverDog wrote:Idahawk mentioned Tony Gonzales, but he didn't have any rings. Gronk has 3. Those count when it comes to HOF induction. And Idahawk, IMO Gronk's records were more of a cause of those championship teams than they were a result of them, and there's no better example than the past SB. It's kinda like discounting Mickey Mantle's 18 World Series home runs by saying that he ran his numbers up by playing for championship teams. Mantle was a huge part of the '50's Yankees just like Gronk was a huge part of the '10's Patriots.

Riv, I hope you are sitting down... I am agreeing with you. After reading his stats and that he maintained those numbers over a sustained career I changed my tune on him and agreed he would be first round. That said, I also agree with you that he was a HUGE part of those championships. The only other single person I'd put in there with him as a result of those Championships is Brady for obvious reasons.

By the way, I think in his 9 years he went to a total of 5 Super Bowls and they won 3. He was a major part of all of them.

idhawkman wrote:By the way, I think in his 9 years he went to a total of 5 Super Bowls and they won 3. He was a major part of all of them.

Yup, as I said, 3 rings. In today's HOF balloting, SB rings matter, which is why guys like Lynn Swann made it.

I realized that you were not disagreeing with me, but I did get the sense that you were attaching a disclaimer of sorts by noting that he benefited from playing on championship teams. Glad you cleared that up.

RiverDog wrote:Yup, as I said, 3 rings. In today's HOF balloting, SB rings matter, which is why guys like Lynn Swann made it.

I realized that you were not disagreeing with me, but I did get the sense that you were attaching a disclaimer of sorts by noting that he benefited from playing on championship teams. Glad you cleared that up.

I could see you getting that from my post. That said, I am a huge fan of "TEAM" champions and not team champions that have one or two great players. That said, the latter rarely wins multiple championships and gets to the big game as individuals on a team. Therefore, We have to recognize that although Brady and Gronk are great players, but that they also play on great TEAMs. So all respect and accolades due Gronk are justified in this case. So yeah, I agree that he's first ballot and that he's a great player and even more importantly he wasn't a one man show on the championships that were won by that team. He just made them that much better which is kudos to him.

That last post didn't come out right. I meant bad teams with one or two stars that win championships. Its easier to do on like a basketball team than it is on a baseball or football team.

idhawkman wrote:That last post didn't come out right. I meant bad teams with one or two stars that win championships. Its easier to do on like a basketball team than it is on a baseball or football team.

IMO baseball is less of a team sport than football or basketball. ERA's and batting averages are pretty darn individualized.

RiverDog wrote:IMO baseball is less of a team sport than football or basketball. ERA's and batting averages are pretty darn individualized.

from an offense perspective I agree with you. From a defensive perspective I couldn't disagree more with you.

RiverDog wrote:IMO baseball is less of a team sport than football or basketball. ERA's and batting averages are pretty darn individualized.

idhawkman wrote:from an offense perspective I agree with you. From a defensive perspective I couldn't disagree more with you.

Although you're correct that defense isn't nearly as quantified as offense is, it's more quantifiable in baseball than it is in football and basketball with their fielding percentages, unearned runs, and tracking of errors.

Baseball has gotten so quantified that general managers are now successfully employing predictive analytics to make long term decisions on player personnel. You don't see that in any other sport, at least none that I am aware of.

Baseball is largely about pitching.
If you have an average team but have a great pitching staff, you can win it all.
Basketball only has a few players on the floor at any one time, so a dominating
player can determine the success of a team. Football isn't quite the same because
of the number of players and the division of Offense and Defense.

I wouldn't compare football and baseball because as River noted, offense is pretty much who's up to bat. But even on the defensive side with great pitching, you have to have a few great pitchers for rotation plus relievers and closers. Without a complete compliment, you still could be SOL.