Trading For Rob Gronkowski Discussion (1 Viewer)

DerrickB

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Approved Blogger
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
4,403
Offline
Would Belichick and the Patriots ask for a 1st rounder in return? Also with the addition of Gronk and some key pieces added to the defense, or we a serious threat in the NFC again?
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,293
Reaction score
53,957
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
They'd ask for more than that. Honestly, that's not a position I think the Saints will go out and sign a second huge contract to after matching Chicago's offer on Hill last year either.

Not to mention...Gronkowski is pretty injury prone it appears.
 

football

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
11,606
Offline
I enjoy these "red thumb" topic. Hmmm back to the topic. We traded away Jimmy Graham a couple of years ago. Signed Coby Fleener to big contract. Still have our own players up for bigger new deals. Plus we are near the bottom in the league on defense. Not to mention we still have to pay Gronk's contract. Set this team further back. Oh yeah great idea to trade for Gronk and leave us with no first rounder. (Sarcasm).
 
OP
DerrickB

DerrickB

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Approved Blogger
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
2,935
Reaction score
4,403
Offline
That's your opinion man.


I enjoy these "red thumb" topic. Hmmm back to the topic. We traded away Jimmy Graham a couple of years ago. Signed Coby Fleener to big contract. Still have our own players up for bigger new deals. Plus we are near the bottom in the league on defense. Not to mention we still have to pay Gronk's contract. Set this team further back. Oh yeah great idea to trade for Gronk and leave us with no first rounder. (Sarcasm).
 

44slayer

Black and Gold
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
7,584
Age
41
Offline
#1 offense - no #1 target. We don't need big name skill position players in this offense. In fact I think its a detriment to the offense to have a go to guy. Not knowing where the ball is going is an asset. Spend the money on the O line and defense.
 

hookedsaint

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
4,394
Reaction score
2,508
Age
39
Location
New Iberia, La
Offline
I think we should trade our first for him buuuuuuut only if les miles is d coordinator and uses him at linebacker
 

HogsNSaints

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jun 8, 2015
Messages
2,459
Reaction score
3,664
Location
Arkansas
Offline
If we're willing to give up enough to get Gronk, we should probably give it up to get a premiere DE.
 

Darren B

My son's a Who Dat too!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
1,222
Reaction score
1,463
Location
Bury St Edmunds, UK
Online
Yeah, cos we're a stud TE away from being a Super Bowl contender.

What's that thing called again? Oh yeah, that's it - defense.
 

AARPSaint

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 6, 1998
Messages
24,730
Reaction score
19,263
Age
73
Location
West Chester, PA
Offline
Don't need a #1 target. We already have Michael Thomas. We have Brandon Cooks with extraordinary speed. We have Willie Snead who catches everything thrown to him and is tough as a three dollar steak. We have Brandon Coleman who towers above opposing cornerbacks. Given that group of wide receivers, Fleener, Hill, and Hoomanawanui are good enough.

On the other side of the ball we have a bottom half defense and suboptimal specious, I mean special teams. Not hard to see what the priorities should be. Moreover, the Saints only have six picks and limited cap money.

Gronkowski is a potential hall of fame tight end, maybe the greatest of all time. That said, he has suffered a lot of injuries recently. Thus, it would be unwise in my view to pursue a trade for him.
 

Saintaholic

<><><><><><><><><><><>
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 8, 2000
Messages
17,610
Reaction score
29,642
Offline
True story: A year ago, I had a very vivid dream that the Saints traded for Rob Gronkowski during the off-season. It was so vivid, that I thought it was real and woke up hyped up about seeing Gronk in black and gold. It took a good 5-10 minutes for me to realize that it never happened.

If New England wins it all without him, I could see them moving him. I don't think we need him anymore though. I think Michael Thomas will be catching 100 passes next year then we also have Cooks and Snead. Too many mouths to feed. If we did make that power move though, this offense will make the Greatest Show on Turf look like the 2016 Cleveland Browns.
 

football

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
11,606
Offline
That's your opinion man.
Fair enough. However I do get where you going with this and I would like an elite tight end, but if you are going that route, I much rather have Jimmy Graham back since he knows the offense without missing a beat. On the topic of tight end, I wanted us to resign Ben Watson after having a great year.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,293
Reaction score
53,957
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
Fair enough. However I do get where you going with this and I would like an elite tight end, but if you are going that route, I much rather have Jimmy Graham back since he knows the offense without missing a beat. On the topic of tight end, I wanted us to resign Ben Watson after having a great year.
I wanted him back too but...Good thing he chased the money for his last deal or we would have ended up with all three of our starting TE's on IR - two of them to start the year. Fleener is the only one who managed to play 16 games and will be better after a full year in the system. He improved noticeably from game one to game 16. He had a LOT of bad drops early in the year, but cleaned that up big time by the end of the year. I think he graded out as the 13th ranked tight end (or around there) and his salary was on par for the 11th ranked tight end (again...right around there, at least) so his production did match his pay for the most part and should be even better next year.
 

football

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
11,606
Offline
I wanted him back too but...Good thing he chased the money for his last deal or we would have ended up with all three of our starting TE's on IR - two of them to start the year. Fleener is the only one who managed to play 16 games and will be better after a full year in the system. He improved noticeably from game one to game 16. He had a LOT of bad drops early in the year, but cleaned that up big time by the end of the year. I think he graded out as the 13th ranked tight end (or around there) and his salary was on par for the 11th ranked tight end (again...right around there, at least) so his production did match his pay for the most part and should be even better next year.
With Fleener, his problem seem to be the same even towards the end, like the last game where he should of control the ball but he let it move around his arm. Fleener knows the system and knows where to go with his route. That is why he is targeted a lot. However, all I want is for him to catch the ball. I can accept his limitations, but basic things like drops are hurting potential scoring drives. If he can develop some toughness and be better at catching the ball, then he will be alright.
 

insidejob

Respect existence or expect resistance.
Approved Blogger
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
32,293
Reaction score
53,957
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
With Fleener, his problem seem to be the same even towards the end, like the last game where he should of control the ball but he let it move around his arm. Fleener knows the system and knows where to go with his route. That is why he is targeted a lot. However, all I want is for him to catch the ball. I can accept his limitations, but basic things like drops are hurting potential scoring drives. If he can develop some toughness and be better at catching the ball, then he will be alright.


I still think that was a catch and a touchdown. They need to fix the stupid rules more than he needs to improve his catching. That was almost a circus catch considering the coverage and he was hit whole going down. He never dropped the ball. So what if it moved? Would have been a TD a few years ago.

Either way, with all three of our starting tight ends healthy next year, his production will go up since he won't be the only receiving threat in our 3 TE sets.
 

football

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
6,398
Reaction score
11,606
Offline
I still think that was a catch and a touchdown. They need to fix the stupid rules more than he needs to improve his catching. That was almost a circus catch considering the coverage and he was hit whole going down. He never dropped the ball. So what if it moved? Would have been a TD a few years ago.

Either way, with all three of our starting tight ends healthy next year, his production will go up since he won't be the only receiving threat in our 3 TE sets.
I do get it. Hate it too. Trust me. But I just know, at that time they were going to call it incomplete because of the uncertainty of it. Once that ball move down near his hip, even after establishing control in the field of play, I was sure they were going to reverse it.

My stance is if a receiver establish two feet with control in the end zone, it shouldn't matter what the ball does once he is out of bound. It should be end play after stepping out. By my definition, it should be a touchdown. But it wasn't
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom