Rob Gronkowski's Latest Off-Field Antics: Fair or Foul?
Jim Rogash/Getty Images
For the New England Patriots, Rob Gronkowski is an impact player. In his last 27 games at the tight end position, Gronkowski has amassed a whopping 2,117 yards and 28 touchdowns. With Gronkowski on the field in 2012, the Patriots had a pass completion percentage of 65.7 and a touchdown to interception ratio of 23-3. When off the field, the team completed just 58.4 percent of their passes and had a touchdown to interception ratio of 11-6.
When evaluating these numbers and combining them with the way the Patriots' offense looked in the second half of the AFC Championship Game against Baltimore, one thing is clear—Tom Brady and Bill Belichick need a healthy Rob Gronkowski.
However, the 23-year-old's off-field antics in a Las Vegas nightclub over the weekend have once again brought about questions regarding his dependability.
In his latest partying exploits, Gronkowski is seen dancing shirtless on a stage with a cast on his broken left forearm.
At the 0:37 mark of the TMZ video, Gronkowski inexplicably turns to his friend and performs his best WWE impression, resulting in what appears to be a perfectly executed DDT.
This situation begs the question: Is Gronkowski just a young kid having fun, or is he a self-centered, irresponsible tight end (who just signed a six-year, $54 million contract extension)?
Coach Bill Belichick and team owner Robert Kraft must have been cringing when they saw footage of their Pro Bowl tight end risk further injury to an already maimed left arm. Surely the word's "What was he thinking?" ran through their minds.
In the past, teammates have joked away Gronkowski's eccentricities with statements like: "That's just Gronk being Gronk."
However, when you unnecessarily risk the health of your $54 million body away from the field, the discussion usually begins to take on a much more serious tone.
And something tells me Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft agree.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?