The New England Patriots Would've Won Super Bowl with a Healthy Rob Gronkowski

He wasn't healthy throughout the course of the game and it clearly made a big difference in the outcome.

Had Rob Gronkowski been 100 percent, the New England Patriots would have won Super Bowl XLVI.

In the 2011 regular season, Gronkowski put together the single greatest season we've ever seen from a tight end. With 1,327 yards on 90 receptions and 17 touchdowns, Gronkowski out-performed the best seasons from guys like Shannon Sharpe and Tony Gonzalez.

Gonzalez's best season came in 2004 where he caught 102 passes for 1,258 yards and seven touchdowns. Undoubtedly one of the best single seasons of all-time from a tight end, but still not on Gronk's level.

Not to mention, but Gonzalez's best season wasn't until his eighth year in the NFL and Gronkowski just completed his second season.

Also, Gronkowski averaged 14.7 yards per reception, but almost 50 percent of those yards (656 yards to be exact) came after the catch. So, it's not like he's going deep and making great plays, Gronk catches passes across the middle and simply makes guys miss or breaks through multiples tacklers.

As for Shannon Sharpe's best season, the Hall of Famer caught 80 passes for 1,062 yards and scored 10 touchdowns in 1997. A great season nonetheless, but much like Tony G., it was in his eighth year in the league.

So how quickly Gronkowski emerged and developed is arguably the most impressive fact, aside from his numbers actually being remarkable for a tight end.

Now, this obviously doesn't guarantee how his career will play out, but being that he was healthy all season long, his status for the Super Bowl was a big reason why the Patriots fell short.

Against New York during the regular season, Gronkowski caught eight passes for 101 yards as well one touchdown. New England, however, lost that game because Tom Brady turned the ball over three times.

Well, Brady only turned it over once in the Super Bowl, which as opposed to a deep interception was more like a punt, considering where Giants linebacker Chase Blackburn picked it off (Giants' own eight yard-line).

Still, the Pats fell short because other than Aaron Hernandez (eight catches, 14 targets, 67 yards, one touchdown), New England's offense underachieved.

If you put Gronkowski's Week 9 numbers in Super Bowl XLVI with Hernandez's production and with the Patriots defense playing rather well, New England would have won this game. Gronkowski simply couldn't make the normal cuts and breaks on routes like he had all season long.

He caught just two passes for 26 yards and was only targeted three times. Also, it's not like the Giants were totally blanking him with double coverage throughout, otherwise Wes Welker and Deion Branch would have done much more.

Instead, Gronk was isolated in single coverage more often than not because he wasn't close to 100 percent and New York could then play better coverage elsewhere. The Giants didn't need to worry about his run-blocking or leaping ability either, as it was all ineffective thanks to a bum ankle.

And if you are the Giants, why bother double covering him early on? New York had the perfect gameplan at the start, which was to see if Gronk could beat the defense when singled up.

Needless to say, he failed to do so, which then forced Brady to look elsewhere on a consistent basis and the coverage locked down enough to give Eli Manning another game-winning drive opportunity. But a 100 percent Gronk would have led to double coverage and more open routes underneath.

Thereafter, the running game would have gotten working and play-action would have taken on a more vital role. However, the Pats only managed 83 rushing yards with BenJarvus Green-Ellis leading with just 44.

Include how well Aaron Hernandez performed with an unhealthy Gronkowski and New England still almost won. So, had Rob Gronkowski been completely 100 percent, yes, the Pats would have brought home another Vince Lombardi Trophy.

John Rozum on Twitter.