Is Rob Gronkowski the GOAT TE?

[braylon]

12 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Give me Gonzo, Gates, Winslow, Sharpe and Mackey over Gronk no question. All much more dynamic receivers than Gronk. I dont value blocking much for TE's.

Gronks stats are favored by probably the most TE friendly system in NFL history. It was brutal watching Gronk run routes and him be so sluggish in and out of cuts. Gronk has made some exceptional catches and plays, but not enough to put him over those guys for me. He was just big and powerful and bullied his way.  Which value wise you cant knock. But skill wise, didnt correlate. I would of loved to see what he does without Brady and NE. 

I don't think you watched Gronk play in the first half of his career before the injuries took a toll on him. He outran plenty of people. He was fast, quick, strong, could jump.. he had it all. He was a great athlete. Me remembering Antonio Gates as a slow, lumbering TE because of these last few years would be the equivalent of what you're doing to Gronk (except Gronk was still productive at a historic level even after losing a significant amount of his athleticism, unlike Gates).

[y*so*blu]

Don't anybody ask Belichick this question, or you'll be subjected to an hour-long lecture on Russ Francis. 

Tony Gonzalez is overall the greatest tight end I've ever seen play, but Gronk is right behind him in my book.

[William Lee]

Like it or not, you need "moments" to be remembered as a great prayers, or you will be forgotten.

[SBLIII]

Gronk is the best TE to ever play in the NFL. If he is the greatest is debatable because he won't have the numbers some others had and played way less games.

[43M]

47 minutes ago, William Lee said:

In playoffs, good defense takes away big plays, and it is extremely hard to score 24 or more without big plays. If a QB can consistently score 24, 27 or even 30 pts in playoffs when necessary, he is the main reason for SB wins because few can do it.

And it is stupid to judge a QB by how good he can pile up stats with two great WR against lousy teams or tired defense in regular seasons.

Do you have something against making sense?  Every time you attempt to debate, you bring up irrelevant points that have little to do with what was said.

[tom cody]

No he's not. He's up there but give me Gonzalez and Gates over him. 

[indifference]

nope. Tony G is the greatest tight end ever but Gronk is up there in the discussion.

[SBLIII]

3 minutes ago, tom cody said:

No he's not. He's up there but give me Gonzalez and Gates over him. 

what did they do better?

[Elky]

Gronk's only weakness were injuries. He's practically unstoppable if he's on the field, even at 75%. He's on par with Tony G in terms of receiving ability, but he's light years better at blocking.

[indifference]

6 minutes ago, SBLIII said:

what did they do better?

I’d say they ran routes better. and with Tony G he is just as good as Gronk as a blocker. And he played in an era where head hunting was legal. i’d take gronk over gates as a blocker but as a receiver its a coin flip. 

[William Lee]

18 minutes ago, FourThreeMafia said:

Do you have something against making sense?  Every time you attempt to debate, you bring up irrelevant points that have little to do with what was said.

There is nothing to talk about greatness of a player without talking about his impact for W.

Like there is no greatness to talk about the greatness of a general during peace time.

Other TE didn't have chance to make impact in playoffs, maybe it is not their fault, but it is not a legit reason to dismiss the greatness of other players who had the opportunities.

That is why Julian Edelmen should be a HOF, maybe 2nd ballot.

[ET80]

21 minutes ago, indifference said:

I’d say they ran routes better. and with Tony G he is just as good as Gronk as a blocker. And he played in an era where head hunting was legal. i’d take gronk over gates as a blocker but as a receiver its a coin flip. 

I think people are underselling how good of a blocker Tony G was. He didn't have the mass or power that Gronk had, he wasn't escorting a DB out of the back of the endzone like Gronk was - but he had adequate functional strength and technique to seal off the edge (which allowed guys like Willie Roaf and Brian Waters to drive block to the 2nd level, which is what allowed Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson to run free out there). He did what was asked of him, seal the edge and disengage to the next level once the runner cleared the LOS.

I think Gronk is better at blocking, but it's not some huge gap between the two players. Similar to the gap Tony G has as a receiver over Gronk, IMO.

[Bearerofnews]

1 hour ago, braylon said:

I don't think you watched Gronk play in the first half of his career before the injuries took a toll on him. He outran plenty of people. He was fast, quick, strong, could jump.. he had it all. He was a great athlete. Me remembering Antonio Gates as a slow, lumbering TE because of these last few years would be the equivalent of what you're doing to Gronk (except Gronk was still productive at a historic level even after losing a significant amount of his athleticism, unlike Gates).

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. 

[RaidersAreOne]

Tony G baby.

[nextsuperstar1]

32 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

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. 

Rob Gronkowski’s CAREER Average yards per reception was 15.1 yards per catch. He never averaged less than 13.0 yards per catch. Tony Gonzalez NEVER averaged more than 12.9 yards per catch. Gronkowksi May have looked lumbering out there but he was fast and athletic too, that’s what made him such a match up nightmare. You don’t average 15 yards a game without speed. In 2016 his y/r didn’t qualify, due to injury, but he would have easily lead the league.