Bearerofnews

Coach & organization are huge to.

What do you base this on? Solely his 2 sb rings? Which in 1 he played horrible in. Because Rivers numbers are better when you do avgs/efficiency. Rivers absolutely belongs on the ballot based on the standard the HOF has set for QBs. He is one of the best to ever play the game.

Rivers lags way behind? Based on what exactly? His comp% is same as Brady and .4 less than Rodgers. His YPA is better than some and there with others. His td% is .19 under Brees. His int% is .19 higher than Peyton. His passer rating is 4.3 under Brady. Id say those are all relatively close. Especially considering unlike 3 of them, Rivers did it in differing situations (4 diff head coaches).

I'll wait for the movie version of this long post.

Crazy the so called GOAT only had 4 seasons with over 800 yds. Gates had 4 his first 5 years. Kelce has 5 in his first 5 seasons starting, Graham has 5. (Yes 800 is just an arbitrary number i chose, but i think its a safe barometer for a "good TE season" yardage wise based on past 15 years of TE production) Yes Gronk has the TDs, because NE has a bunch of short WRs in the redzone who are not ideal for situational success in the redzone and never had an elite runner. I never feared Gronk when my team played him. Crazy how huge of a contrast there is in some perception of Gronk. I dont see him in the discussion of GOAT at all. I just wonder what happens if NE plugs a new TE in and he has same production Gronk did? There is no denying Gronk has made some spectacular plays, but most skill position starters do. Why do people think Gronk is this big mismatch? Is it really as remedial as "Gronk big Gronk scary?" He is not a great route runner at all. He is not elite level fast or quick (pound for pound even) his hands are ok if you look at his seasonal catch% and drop numbers. Match up problem because he is in the most TE eccentric system ever, with a QB who has all time vision, timing and anticipation with all time elite accuracy.

Joey is a bust?

Are you comparing those RBs to LT, TD, Priest and LJ? NE's RBs wete facilitators in the short passing game, which made Gronk their primary deep threat most of the time, which is why he had a high ypc avg. RBs i name, made their teams run the ball alot more frequently. I guess if i really cared about this debate. Id look at pass atts for NE per year with gronk vs run atts and compare to those other TEs. Then i would look at NEs offensive production with Gronk and without. To me Gronk was always just a cog and not the main cog. Those other TEs were the main cog. Maybe its a disservice to NE offensive players outside of Brady. But i tend to give more credit to the system than the players. Does that make me a bad guy, i dont think so. Just the stigma NE has created imo.

I watched Gronk since he got in the league. He was never fast or quick. He had long strides and primarily ran variations of go routes. So he wasnt breaking in and out of cuts. Martellus Bennett had arguably his best season his 1 year in NE's insanely TE friendly system playing with Brady and that was as a #2 until Gronk was injured. Gates aged and became like the 4th target on the Chargers. Same with Gonzo late in his career (Gonzo for most of his career didnt have great QB play). Gronk when starting was always force fed as a top 2 target on the Patriots. As i said; me i prefer dynamic receivers when it comes to TE'S and imo Gronk was not top 5 when it came to dynamic receivers. Rodgers is the best, AD is the best, AB is the best, Gronk is the best... notice a theme with fans eager to crown current players. Gonzo, Gates and Sharpe all had strong running backs to take away more passing targets from them. From TD, Priest, Larry Johnson, LT. Gronk is great, but best ever or greatest ever, i dont see it.

3rd string OG's stay on teams for years and years. But they have minimal value compared to other players. Yes teams will have blocking specialist burried on their TE depth chart. That only reiterates what i said. Teams dont value how good TEs block nearly as much as some fans seem to think. Literally no current trend points to that being false. Gronk is a quality blocker for an elite receiving TE. If he wasn't elite receiving TE, he would be 2nd or 3rd string, seeing limited playing time. 32 teams value receiving TE's much much more than blocking. Is anyone actually arguing contrary to that?

And literally NONE of them are starters... that's for a reason. But hey what do 32 NFL coaches know, right?

Guy, teams are littering their roster with 3rd string TE's whos "skill set" is blocking, but that 1st string spot is for the receiving TE. There is a plethora of blocking TE's. Who pre-2000s would of been more valued. Today's NFL, teams dont care about blocking TE, like at all. They can bring in a 6th eligible olinemen. Teams value receiving TE's 100 times over blocking TE's anyone who says otherwise is just trying to be different and mildly awkward. Blocking TE is the equivalent of teams valuing receiving fullbacks. Just not a reality. So when you tell me so and so TE was a great blocker, i say 2 things. Prove it. Show me the tangible data to back up an opinion. Secondly, i say who gives a damn.

No brainer, interior. Game wreckers!

How do yards per catch equate to dynamic? Dynamic as in those guys were constantly making amazing 1 handed catches, boxing out defenders, catching in traffic and clutter, running fluid routes and making great adjustment catches (gronk did as well, not nearly as frequently as them). Gronk was underlayed in route concepts that had him wide open quite a bit and it wasnt because he was a great route runner. You cant quantify how good TE's consistently are blocking and in most cases TE's are blocking smaller LB's or helping OT's. Or they are pulling based on the run design. How good a TE blocks to me is the most useless attribute on a football field and most football people tend to agree with me. Look at the drafting and FA trends as well as TE contracts based on what skillset is valued. No one is drafting TE's early for their blocking. TE's make their value in the receiving game.

I've come around, Chiefs are going to be amazing. Ill be shocked if they lose a game.

I always believe let a person retire for 3 years, than see what the public perception of that player is and it is a more accurate assessment. I think a ton of players are under appreciated while active and overrated while active. Once they retire for several years, people seem to realign their opinions more accurately to how good a player really was. It's hard to argue against Gronk's stats and i am a huge proprietor of stats = how good a player is. But to me for Gronk it just didnt translate the same way. I'm not going to lie, i cant make a convincing argument against Gronk, but its just what i see and what i value and i didnt think of him nearly as highly as most other do.