Jump to content

Is Rob Gronkowski the GOAT TE?


nextsuperstar1

Recommended Posts

No. People apparently forgot that Jimmy Graham was doing the same things (receiving-wise) when he played with Drew Brees. Then he was dealt and we found out he wasn't nearly as good as he seemed when he played in a dominant passing game.

Gronkowski was a better blocker than Graham, but I don't buy the "GOAT TE" stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This always comes down to how much you value mediocre longevity (you shouldn't)

Gronk played the same number of years as Kellen Winslow who was the greatest in his time.

Gronk is clearly the greatest now. Any objective look at it comes up Gronk easy.

 

Here are some per 16 games played in the regular season and playoffs:

Gronk

  • 73.2 catches 1092 yards 11 TDs  at 15.1 per catch
  • 81 catches  1163 yards  12 TDs 14.4 per catch

Gates

  • 65 catches 803 yards 7.9 TDs 12.4 per catch
  • 68 catches 720 yards 2.7 TDs 10.6 per catch

Sharpe

  • 64 catches 789 yards 4.9 TDs  at 12.3 per catch
  • 55 catches 724 yards 3.6 TDs at 13.1 per catch

Gonzalez

  • 78.5 catches 896 yards 6.6 TDs at 11.4 per catch
  • 68.6 catches 654 yards 9.1 TDs at 9.5 per catch

Witten

  • 77.1 catches 833 yards 4.6 TDs at 10.8 per catch
  • 90 catches  972  yards  2 TDs  10.8 per catch

 

You deal with him missing 29 of 144 regular season games and 5 of 21 playoff games. 

  • This is because he was 92% Randy Moss / 92 % Orlando Pace
    • Moss scored 11.5 TDs per 16 regular season and averaged 15.6 per catch
  • The other guys were possession receivers who may or may not have been adequate/good blockers.

 

This as always is the classic Vinny Testaverde vs Kurt Warner argument.

  • Vinny 275 TDs - Warner 208
  • Vinny 46,233 passing yards - Warner 32,344

But Vinny did it for longer and got hurt less!  O.o

Pro-Vinny guys will never stop.

They never make the Vinny argument but they make every single equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Starless said:

Gronk is the Aaron Rodgers of TEs

Tony Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of TEs

 

Gronk is the best to ever play, Gonzo is the GOAT.

The only argument Gonzo has over Gronk is longevity. Gronk trashes him in literally every per game stat, had as many 1000 yard seasons as him, dominated him receiving TD's, and was a million times the blocker. 

Brady's argument over Rodgers is far more than longevity. In fact longevity is the least compelling part of that discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The LBC said:

He set milestones that only Gronk was able to break, but he did it in an era that was way, WAY less passer friendly (particularly to the TE).  Literally, without Kellen Winslow Sr. there would be no Rob Gronkowski, no Tony Gonzalez, they would likely have been playing different positions.

This is one of those misconceptions that is told over and over again until people believe it. While the NFL may have been less pass happy then, Air Coryell was as pass happy as current NFL teams. 

If you were a target in Coryell San Diego, or Early Marino Miami, or Moon Run-and-Shoot Houston there were more yards to go around regardless of league average.

From 1979-1984 Fouts averaged 290.0 yards passing per game. Brady averaged 283.4 yards per game during Gronk's career.

Winslow was great over that period and for his career, but the team, system, coach, and QB offset anything having to do with any league standards. Of course Winslow, as the best player on that team, also played a huge part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Don't understand. Are you downplaying that? 

Yes. There's something to be said for longevity, but if longevity is literally the ONLY argument you have over another guy, then you weren't better than the other guy. Nobody puts Emitt Smith above Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, or Walter Payton

Gronk is significantly further ahead of every TE whose played the position in per game stats. It's actually frightening how much better he was than the best of the best when he was on the field. He played a long enough career that we can rule out it being a fluke, it was much more than a Terrell Davis or Sterling Sharpe type career where you wanted to see if he could sustain it. He proved that he was just that dominant of player. 

If you were going to construct the best team ever for one game, you pick Gronk at TE. In fact the difference between Gronk and everyone else is so wide of a gap, that you'd risk the injury and pick him over someone who was guaranteed to be healthy because he'd be such a heavy mismatch in every game he played. 

He's a better blocker than everyone else, he is more efficient than everybody else, he gets more yards than everybody else, he has a better catch radius than everybody else, he's a bigger mismatch for CB's and LB's than everybody else, he's a better redzone threat than everybody else. Longevity is literally the only con. If he only played 3 or 4 seasons I'd maybe agree with you. He played 9 and played 115 games, he played 80% of the games his team was in during his career. He wasn't just some guy who had a quick peak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...