Better Career: Rob Gronkowski V Tony Gonzalez

[bigbadbuff23835]

23 minutes ago, C0LTSFAN4L1F3 said:

This isn't a question of "which career you would rather have?" By that logic Charles Haley is the GOAT DE because Reggie White or Deacon Jones would sure as hell rather have Haley's career but Haley is nothing compared to either of Jones or White. 

Gronk played at a high level for 9 years, that does not make you the GOAT. 

Gonzo is better and it's not even close. 

So again. The only thing he has on Gronk is longevity. Anything else you’d like to add that you think he’s better at? A lot longer of a career and only 24 more touchdowns and the same number of 1k yard seasons? 

 

You're right. It’s not even close. You just have it *** backwards 

[dtait93]

Both players came in to the league at age 21, so for comparison's sake I'll take Gonzalez's numbers from age 21-29 and compare them to Gronk's numbers from age 21-29. There's no debate Gonzalez wins the durability and longevity debate.

Gronk: 115 Games, 794 Tgt's, 521 Rec, 7,861 Yds, 15.1 Y/R, 68.4 Y/G, 79 TD's

Gonzalez: 143 Games, 997 Tgt's, 648 Rec, 7,810 Yds, 12.1 Y/R, 54.6 Y/G, 56 TD's

They both averaged the same amount of targets and receptions per game, but Gronk was easily the more explosive player and made more out of his opportunities in the games he played in. He averaged 3 more yards a catch leading to more yards and scoring opportunities, and 23 more touchdowns in 28 less games.

Gronk was a better scoring threat, amassed more yardage to give your offense more scoring opportunities, and was also the better blocker. Gronk was definitely the better player when he was on the field, but that's the problem - him actually being on the field. He missed ~3 games a season on average and played 8 less years. For me though, he gives you such a better chance to win when he is on the field that I don't care about the 3 missed games and shortened career. I feel like I have a better chance to win a Super Bowl with 9 years of Gronk than I do 17 years of Tony.

[Bobikus]

I'd take Gonzo if I was going to pick a player for my team, but Gronk's career was better in that he experienced a lot more team success.

[Jlowe22]

The question is indeed who has the better career.  I’d consider Gronk’s stats plus rings a better career than Tony’s stats plus longevity.

[tyler735]

If we are talking better career I'm taking Gonzalez. Gronk's rings don't do much for me. Always disliked the ring argument as football is a team game. Tony Gonzalez has the edge in several statistical categories (obviously he played longer, but longevity plays a role here), he did it in a time for much of his career that wasn't as easy to put up big numbers like it currently is, and did it with much worse QB's/offensive systems around him. Now if this question was who had the better career peak, that may be a little more difficult for me to decide as Gronk was a beast when he was healthy.

[C0LTSFAN4L1F3]

13 hours ago, Malik said:

The gap between Haley and White/Jones is astronomically greater than the gap between Gonzalez and Gronk. Tony literally just played longer that's it. That's the only thing he has over Gronk as a player. Tony's best season is on par with Gronk's 4th best. Unless you really value longevity there isn't a strong argument in Tony's favor.

The point is that if you frame the question that way, then it just becomes a question of rings with little to no other factors involved. If you ask "which career would you rather have?" Charles Haley would undoubtedly be the answer over White/Jones despite being a vastly inferior player. "Tony's best season is on par with Gronk's 4th best" is a hilarious exaggeration. If you look at all the seasons between the two of them in totality,  the 2nd and 3rd ranking seasons in yardage are both Gonzo's. 

[Jakuvious]

On 3/24/2019 at 7:32 PM, Nex_Gen said:

The only TE in the league ever who could turn a 10 yard crossing route into a 50+yard TD using brute force and sheer speed is overrated?

Brute force, sure. Gronk was never THAT fast, though. There are guys in the league now that are more likely to make something out of a short route based on speed than Gronk. Kelce, Kittle, Vernon Davis, etc. He's not the only TE ever that's been a talented athlete.

[ET80]

16 hours ago, dtait93 said:

They both averaged the same amount of targets and receptions per game, but Gronk was easily the more explosive player and made more out of his opportunities in the games he played in. He averaged 3 more yards a catch leading to more yards and scoring opportunities, and 23 more touchdowns in 28 less games.

Is this a fair statement, given who Gronk had as his QB in this timeframe (Tom Brady) vs what Gonzalez had as his QB in this timeframe (Trent Green, Elvis Grbac and Rich Gannon)?

It's a safe assumption that Brady is better than all three of the QBs that Gonzalez played with. Wouldn't that lead to a higher TD rate and more YPR?

In a comparison this close, supporting cast matters.

[ET80]

23 hours ago, bigbadbuff23835 said:

His ability as a blocker and his ability to shed off tacklers like rag dolls then proceed to run 20 yards makes up for it.

Two things:

- I think many of you are forgetting how important Gonzalez was for KCs run game. Without Gonzalez, Priest Holmes probably doesn't set the single season TD record in 2004, KC doesn't boast one of the best running games in the league for the better part of the decade. (That KC run game was 2nd to Denver in terms of dominance in that era). Gonzo may not "escort people out the club" like Gronk, but he was smart, used spacing and technique to get over on his guy. This was back when everyone was trying to go ZBS, so that's what his assignments were.

- Gronk had the more physical style of play as a receiver, but I don't think he was nearly as precise with his routes like Gonzo was. Gonzo was like a Larry Fitzgerald or DeAndre Hopkins out there, his routes were so technically clean he'd create separation in and out of his cuts. He didn't have to win on athleticism, he won on technique.

It's nominal differences between the two. I'd honestly say (if you're ignoring the health, which is baffling to me) you're splitting hairs between the two.

[LieutenantGains]

4 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

Brute force, sure. Gronk was never THAT fast, though. There are guys in the league now that are more likely to make something out of a short route based on speed than Gronk. Kelce, Kittle, Vernon Davis, etc. He's not the only TE ever that's been a talented athlete.

He had the speed before the injuries hit

 

[dtait93]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Is this a fair statement, given who Gronk had as his QB in this timeframe (Tom Brady) vs what Gonzalez had as his QB in this timeframe (Trent Green, Elvis Grbac and Rich Gannon)?

It's a safe assumption that Brady is better than all three of the QBs that Gonzalez played with. Wouldn't that lead to a higher TD rate and more YPR?

In a comparison this close, supporting cast matters.

Sure it matters, but atleast in my eyes, the QB disparity argument kind of loses ground when the TD and Y/R difference is that astronomical 

[ET80]

27 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

Sure it matters, but atleast in my eyes, the QB disparity argument kind of loses ground when the TD and Y/R difference is that astronomical 

But the difference in QBs is probably moreso astronomical than the TD or Y/R stats are. 

I mean... Elvis Grbac. A constantly injured Trent Green. Rich Gannon before he got two HOF WRs in Oakland. And in the red corner, you have... T effing B. THAT'S astronomical.

You could put in an average QB like Jay Cutler or Matt Stafford and claim a significant upgrade over those three. They were that bad over those years, let alone compared against the GOAT at the height of his ability.

Another item your stats aren't showing - the offenses these two teams operated with. NE will never be mistaken for a run first team, or even a balanced team. They put their hopes on the arm of Brady. KC in that era? They were giving the ball to Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson at an unhealthy rate - Johnson had a 400+ carry season, Holmes was getting 300+ consistently. There were seasons where Johnson would have 300+ and Holmes would have 150+ carries (not touches, mind you - actual carries).

KC was a "ground chuck" offense, that's going to impact these sort of numbers.

[Malik]

24 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But the difference in QBs is probably moreso astronomical than the TD or Y/R stats are. 

I mean... Elvis Grbac. A constantly injured Trent Green. Rich Gannon before he got two HOF WRs in Oakland. And in the red corner, you have... T effing B. THAT'S astronomical.

You could put in an average QB like Jay Cutler or Matt Stafford and claim a significant upgrade over those three. They were that bad over those years, let alone compared against the GOAT at the height of his ability.

Another item your stats aren't showing - the offenses these two teams operated with. NE will never be mistaken for a run first team, or even a balanced team. They put their hopes on the arm of Brady. KC in that era? They were giving the ball to Priest Holmes or Larry Johnson at an unhealthy rate - Johnson had a 400+ carry season, Holmes was getting 300+ consistently. There were seasons where Johnson would have 300+ and Holmes would have 150+ carries (not touches, mind you - actual carries).

KC was a "ground chuck" offense, that's going to impact these sort of numbers.

Was there ever a time you looked at Tony and thought "this is the dominate and unstoppable football player on the field"

[Elky]

On 3/24/2019 at 8:00 PM, Bearerofnews said:

Gonzo pretty easily. Gronk has never been in my top 5 of all time TE's. Always found him to be overrated personally. 

[MSURacerDT55]

Imagine if Gonzalez had a HOF QB in his prime throwing to him his whole career or at least half what his numbers would be