Results 37 to 48 of 114
-
06-21-2013, 12:35 PM #37
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
That is a deramatic overvaluation of Pitta.
"yes his blocking is better"... lol... on a scale of 1-10, Gronk is a 9, Pitta might be a 2...
His catch radius is MUCH larger, hands are similar, athleticism tilts towards Gronk... routes, tilt towards Gronk, size as well... The sum of the parts is SIGNIFICANTLY greater.
-
06-21-2013, 05:08 PM #38
-
06-21-2013, 05:29 PM #39
-
06-21-2013, 05:45 PM #40Pro Bowl Poster
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Toluca Lake, CA
- Posts
- 1,058
- Blog Entries
- 1
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
That's why drafting players with ? marks is what it is. Ravens got the better end of the deal. One SB and should be 2 if not for Evans/Cundiff. Hernandez by the looks of things is going down with one charge or another, Gronk can't stay healthy (reason why he dropped in the draft)...now back surgery (iffy at best).
-
06-22-2013, 09:52 AM #41Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,610
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
Pitt is a damn good receiving TE. He was a terrible blocker who has improved. Your love of Gronk is amusing. You lose all credibiilty when you say a TE would have resulted in 2-3 Super Bowls. How many Super Bowls has NWE won with Gronk? And that is with him putting up record numbers. Maybe with Gronk blocking on kicks Cundiff doesn't miss the FG or Lee Evans doesn't drop the damn ball. But hey with Gronk we would be going for our 4th ship.
-
06-22-2013, 11:06 AM #42
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
-
06-22-2013, 01:14 PM #43
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
Hold on here, why are so many people evaluating Gronkowski's 15-year potential?
Sure, he had back issues in college that might plague him through his NFL career. Say he only gets to go 7-8 years instead of 15 (which is super-rare for a TE, a position that gets banged up a lot). So what?
Is it worth a second-round pick to get someone who will ONLY be a superstar for 5-6 years? Who will ONLY help you to championships for a brief time? If you're a team in the gutter, maybe not, but a team of the verge of a title that needs a legit receiving threat to get over the top... I don't care if it's a brief window, I'm taking it.
Even if you decide that you can't afford to give the guy a huge contract because you're worried about injuries or you have long-term cap issues, you can hold on to him for four years on his rookie deal, franchise him on the fifth year, and maybe even afford to do it again for year six, where you evaluate if you can get anything for him in trade.
Are we really sitting here debating whether or not Gronk would have helped us? The team which missed out on a 2011 title shot because our go-to end-zone receiver for the season's biggest play was LEE EVANS, who DROPPED THE BALL?
It's pretty reasonable to believe that with Gronk on board, Joe's first title would have been earlier than this year, and he might have multiple rings right now.
(Yes, I know Gronk didn't finish the season healthy the past two years, but as mentioned earlier, the injuries that kept him down had nothing to do with his back, or any other ailment that could be projected from college. They were NFL injuries that could have happened to anyone, including Dickson or Pitta.)
-
06-22-2013, 02:03 PM #44
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
Sure Pitta is good, borderline top 10.
I didn't say that Gron WOULD have resulted in 2-3 SB's, simply that he MIGHT HAVE. He is the biggest matchup problem in all of football. IF he's on our side and not NE's they aren't close in that game you speak of, and Lee Evans liekly wouldn't have ever been acquired.
Amusing? he is BY FAR the best TE in football. BY A LOT...
-
06-22-2013, 02:13 PM #45
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
That's really not the discussion - at least from my end. The discussion is whether or not Gronkowski alone is worth more than every player the Ravens drafted that year - not whether or not he was worth a 2nd rounder. That was the claim, and I'm simply saying that three years is too early to definitively state that.
-
06-22-2013, 03:11 PM #46
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
well, the ORIGINAL claim was that Pitta/Dickson was better then Gronk/AH... and even with all that has gone on, that is a complete and utter joke.
I took it further, adn IMO, it's still very obvious that Gronk > our entire draft. From hat draft we got an above average TE and a few bit players. They got one fo the very best individual players in all of football. VERY CLEARLY the best TE in all of football.
-
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
Who seldom plays and will miss more time at the beginning of season after just
under going more back surgery.
If the guy can't get on the field,he's of no use so he can't be the best even with his
good years thrown in. You can't count what might have been.
As for the blocking TE, even Bellicheat said there's very few TEs that can block
on the line today.
As Dickson said on his radio show, that's because I'm going vs a rusher
weighing 50-80 lbs heavier than me. Did you ever try to block a guy 50 lbs heavier
than you? 20 lbs? 10 lbs? It ain't easy.Last edited by AirFlacco; 06-22-2013 at 04:59 PM.
-
Re: Pitta/Dickson vs. Gronk/Hernandez
Speaking of seldom playing, here's the stats of Ravens vs NE AFC Championship game.
Hernandez had 83 yards receiving.
Pitta had 55 yards receiving.
Gronk had - 0 yards, nada, zip, nutten.
He can't be the best if he can't even contribute in the championship game and PItta
wasn't that far behind Hernandez who's suppose to be so great. Pitta's longest was
also 22 yds as opposed to 17 yds for Hernandez.
Gronk's longest was 0, nada, zip, nutten.
http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=330120017
Bookmarks