Is Gronk the greatest TE ever?

[Ozzy]

8 hours ago, DinoZ said:

1.Tony Gonzalez

2.Jason Wittten

3.Antonio Gates

4.Shannon Sharpe

5.Travis Kelce

6.GRONK

 

 

I would agree with this top 6 but would put Gronkowski ahead of Kelce because he is a more dominating blocker.  As an all around TE Gronk is as good as any and is such an amazing blocker, but hard to argue against Witten or Gonzalez when they 13,000+ yards and 15,000 yards and Gronk only has 8900+ yards.  

[MacReady]

Dude's a better blocker than any receiving tight end ahead of him, and as far as touchdowns, he's third all-time.

Yes. The answer is yes.

People often mistake longevity with greatness. Tony Gonzalez had worse quarterbacks, but dude played 17 NFL seasons.

Gronkowski has played 9 seasons.

Gonzalez played in 270 games and has 18 more touchdowns than Gronkowski.
Lol.
Rob Gronkowski has played in 138 games.
Lol.

I usually hate the phrase, "...and it's not close," but there's essentially zero argument on this one. Like none whatsoever.

This is comparing Waterworld to The Godfather. You might like Waterworld more like I do, but to say Waterworld is a better movie is just the dumbest thing in the history of the world.

Rob Gronkowski could have played in any era of football and made it to the Hall of Fame if you took only his best 4 years and he had only a 4 year career.

In 8 less seasons, Gronkowski had the same number of 1,000 yard seasons.
In 8 less seasons, Gronkowski had 2 MORE double digit TD seasons.

Gonzalez was faster and played more games. That's literally it. That's also neglecting the disparity in blocking ability.

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Outpost31

[AngusMcFife]

I'd say Gronk is the GOAT, but there really should be two categories, receiving TE and all-around TE.

Gonzales and Gates were great receiving TEs but you can't compare them to great all-around TEs like Gronk and John Mackey (who hasn't been mentioned yet, but is often cited as revolutionizing the TE position by combining tremendous blocking with being a great downfield receiving threat).

Gonzales is more of a big WR who sometimes blocks.  

[Ozzy]

31 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Dude's a better blocker than any receiving tight end ahead of him, and as far as touchdowns, he's third all-time.

Yes. The answer is yes.

People often mistake longevity with greatness. Tony Gonzalez had worse quarterbacks, but dude played 17 NFL seasons.

Gronkowski has played 9 seasons.

Gonzalez played in 270 games and has 18 more touchdowns than Gronkowski.
Lol.
Rob Gronkowski has played in 138 games.
Lol.

I usually hate the phrase, "...and it's not close," but there's essentially zero argument on this one. Like none whatsoever.

This is comparing Waterworld to The Godfather. You might like Waterworld more like I do, but to say Waterworld is a better movie is just the dumbest thing in the history of the world.

Rob Gronkowski could have played in any era of football and made it to the Hall of Fame if you took only his best 4 years and he had only a 4 year career.

In 8 less seasons, Gronkowski had the same number of 1,000 yard seasons.
In 8 less seasons, Gronkowski had 2 MORE double digit TD seasons.

Gonzalez was faster and played more games. That's literally it. That's also neglecting the disparity in blocking ability.

 

Gronkowski has played 11 season, where does this 9 come from?

 

Granted he has a ton of TDs but the fact he has played with the greatest QB of all time and basically has done so his entire career.  Yeah that has more than a little something to do with his production.

  

 

Ok so Waterworld is Tony Gonzalez and Rob Gronkowski is The Godfather?  Wow.

 

Gronk is an amazing athlete no question and a better blocker but consistency in the passing game is very important and hard to argue with the longevity and production of Gonzalez.  Granted Gonzalez was targeted over 2000 times in his career, Gronk was targeted not even 1000 times but they are both totally different players, sure Gonzalez was not a great blocker but he was better at blocking than Gronk is at running  precise routes.  Just like people saying Antonio Brown is so much better than Larry Fitzgerald and totally disregard longevity for a few amazing seasons Brown had when reality is currently he is a freaking nut job.  Gronk is a little off also but he is funny and a good guy so at least he has that going for him unlike AB.  

 

Not sure the movie comparison for Gronk and Tony but it is absolutely not Waterworld and The Godfather.  

[Hunter2_1]

Gronk averages 15 yards per catch, has had four 1k yard seasons (would be 6 probably but for injuries) and in one season had 17 TDs. He absolutely is a foremost a receiving  TE

if you want to penalise Gronk for not being the best receiving option, it’s got to be pretty damned close. 
 

you add the blocking to that….it’s tough not to say he’s the best you’ve seen play. 

[MagicMT]

44 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Sure Gonzalez was not a great blocker but he was better at blocking than Gronk is at running  precise routes. 

Hmmm I don't feel like this is true and even if it was, who cares how precise of a route Gronk was running if he still made the play? And Gronk is 5x times the blocker Gonzo was, that counts for a lot when you're a TE.

Only thing Gonzalez have over Gronk is the longevity. 

For me Gronk is the GOAT no questions. 

[MacReady]

Precise routes. Because how pretty and precise the route you run factors into it. Points for aesthetics I guess.

[Ozzy]

35 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Precise routes. Because how pretty and precise the route you run factors into it. Points for aesthetics I guess.

Gonzalez is 3rd All Time in receptions regardless of position.  That is meaningless why?

Gonzalez is 6th All Time in receiving yards regardless of position.  

 

"Of his 1,200-plus receptions, exactly 808 went for first downs."

"Gonzalez also put together 13 seasons with 70 or more receptions, tying him with another player who fills pages of the record books: Jerry Rice. "

"He also holds the record for consecutive starts by a tight end at 120. Finally, he has the second-highest reception count of all-time at any position in NFL history. "

"Of note, Kansas City was 4th in rushing in 1999, 3rd in 2002, 5th in 2004, and 4th in 2005."      Granted he is not Shannon Sharpe as an athletic blocker but was not as terrible as many around here make him out to be.  

 

Gonzalez is 8th All Time in receiving TDs, Gronkowski is 12th.  Good for Gronk.

 

 

 

Here are the QBs Tony Gonzalez had while in the NFL

Elvis Garbac
Trent Green
Damon Huard
Brodie Croyle
Tyler Thigpen
Matt Ryan
Chris Redman

 

 

Gronk had well...

Tom Brady

 

Then one season had Jacoby Brissett and Jimmy G and rarely if ever throw Brian Hoyer in there.  Not sure if any of those other QBs even threw a TD pass to Gronk since Brady and Gronk have 90 TDs together and that happened this year and he has 92 currently.  Only duo with more was Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison with 112 TDs, and to say Harrison's success had nothing to do with Peyton Manning...yeah right.  

 

Gronk is an amazing blocking TE and all around TE but he has insanely benefited from being with Tom Brady.  If Gronk was drafted by Cleveland lets say, no way he has the same career.  And Tony Gonzalez was not this open gate in the blocking game, but sure going out for a pass makes one not be able to block because you are running a route.

 

Tony Gonzalez is the Waterworld of TEs?  Well Jeanne Tripplehorn could be one of the worst casted characters in film history though, she sucked in that movie, and Tina Majorino as that annoying kid is not much better.  Both greatly hurt the film and put a different actress in there at each spot and could have been a different film.   Where as Dennis Hopper was freaking great in it, make a few slight changes and that film could have been outstanding.  At least it was wildly creative and original.

 

If George Miller would have directed it, could have been Mad Max Fury Road on water and pretty bad to the bone.  

[Ozzy]

Back to the real topic, who else could have played those two main female characters in Waterworld.

 

 

 

Madeleine Stowe (Last of the Mohicans): Is outstanding and she was amazing in the 90s and part of some good quality films.  She is strong and could have fit the character "Helen" very well and be a great improvement.  

 

Juliette Lewis (Strange Days):  Another strong female actress, pretty awesome at the time and could easily have played "Helen" is not the #1 choice but better than who they got, she might have been in too many big films around that time to fit though.

 

Stacy Dash (Clueless):  Sounds odd but could have really worked, would have really been a unique choice and she is super tough and confident to play "Helen".  Would be really going out there but could have made the film really standout and be something different.  She is underutilized as an actress in the 90s, should have got way more roles than she did.  

 

 

 

 

Kirsten Dunst (Interview with the Vampire): Clear #1, outstanding actress at that age and really powerful, would have been a great upgrade no question for "Enola", could have shaved her head just the same and been totally fine and bring something to the character.  

 

Natalie Portman (Heat):  Kind of a long shot for " Enola" but would have been better than what they got.  Outstanding in Leon The Professional a year previous so might have been too close for that one to be cast in this one.  

 

 

 

Either way those two original actresses in Waterworld did nothing in their careers for a reason, sure Tina Majorino was in Napoleon Dynamite but was playing a loser girl and clearly did just fine with that role.  

 

[Jakuvious]

My stance on this one for a long time has been that you can't go wrong with Gonzalez or Gronk. It's a matter of preference, to me. Gonzalez gives you consistency and availability, while Gronk is more of a freak athlete, both as a playmaker in the passing game and a blocker in the run game. It's more a question of which you prefer at that point, than who is actually better. No one really disagrees on who is better at what, it's just how we value those things.

I do think one word gets misused in the discourse, though, and that's those who say Gonzalez just has longevity. It's not the longevity that matters most, it's the availability. Longevity would be, Gronk playing 11 seasons versus Gonzalez playing 17. Availability is that when Gonzalez had played 11 seasons, he had played 174 games. If Gronk finishes out the season healthy, he'll be at 11 seasons and 143 games. That's the bigger deal than how long Gonzalez lasted, IMO. Because when you get to the question of, say, who would you rather have, I think the timeframe becomes important. One game? Definitely Gronk. One season, probably Gronk still. But the further in you get, it becomes this issue of would you rather have 64 games of Gonazlez over 4 seasons, or 50 seasons of Gronk. And even if we all agree peak Gronk is the best we've ever seen, that calculation complicates things. And that's where personally, I wind up at a bit of a stand still. I think you could argue successfully either way, which to me means it's close enough for me to not really pick a side.

[AngusMcFife]

Gronk is the best all-around TE in NFL history.

Tony Gonzales is the best receiving TE in NFL history. 

How much you value receiving over blocking determines which player you think is better. 

[SkippyX]

Gronk was the GoaT TE before he played for Tampa. Now its fairly obvious to everyone who bothers to look into it.

 

He's now got 106 TDs between the regular season and playoffs. He's only 32.

• Kelce is just 5 months younger and has 62 TDs.
• Gonzo had 115 and he played through age 37.
• Gates had 118 and played until he was 38.

Gronk has 14 playoff TDs and 5 Super Bowl TDs. Gonzo (4) and Gates (2) don't have as many playoff TDs as he has SB TDs.

• Kelce has 9 and 1
  • 7 of those 9 are in the last 2 years so GG to Kelce

 

As a blocker Gronk is so far ahead of every other exceptional receiving TE to ever play.

• Its funny to even talk about it like there is a point to comparing Gonzo or Kelce or Gates as a blocker.
• There may have been some 6th OL types who could block as well as Gronk but they were extremely limited pass catchers.

 

Gronk averages 14.9 a catch in the regular season and 14.6 in the playoffs

• Kelce is at 12.8 and 12.0
• Gates was at 12.4 and 10.6
• Gonzo was at 11.4 and 9.5
• Yards per target regular season goes 9.7 Gronk, 9.0 Kelce, 8.1 Gates, 7.5 Gonzo
  • In the playoffs its 9.3 Kelce, 8.8 Gronk, 7.6 Gates, 7.0 Gonzo, 

Gronk has 5 seasons of 10+ TDs, 4 seasons of 1000+ yards, and 3 seasons of both.

• Kelce is at 2, on his way to 6, and 2
• Gonzo finished with 3, 4, and 1
• Gates finished with 4, 2, and 1

 

Guys like Witten were great and deserve top 10 consideration  but they are not even worth mentioning compared to Gronk. 

Witten was a 10.6 a catch 7.6 per target 74 TDs, no 10+ TD seasons 4 seasons of 1000+

If you want to go old school I'd give Ditka a 4 year run to start his career on a Gronk level but he dropped off big time after that.

 

To me going with Gronk or Gonzo is like going with Orlando Pace or Andrew Whitworth. Both are very good but its very clear who is better.

• Gronk was a transcendental receiving threat. Gonzo was a very good TE threat
• Gronk was a wrecking ball as a blocker. Gonzo was a pretty good blocker as a TE.
• Gronk absolutely dominated in the playoffs. You can't write the history of the league without him. Gonzo might be a footnote on the phantom push off?.
  • SB leaderboards for yards, receptions and TDs all go 1 - Rice 2 - Gronk
  • Not TE leaderboards, all players leaderboards.
  • 5+ SB TDs? Rice, Emmitt, Gronk
  • Gronk is 2nd in playoff TDs and needs 170 yards to pass Edelman for 2nd in playoff receiving yards.

Gonzo only missed 2 games in 17 years. That's an incredible stat but it speaks to durability, not impact.

• His teams missed the playoffs in 11 of those 17 years and won a playoff game in 1 of those 17 years,
• Eli Manning was similarly durable.

[SkippyX]

Let us all know which one of these stats shows Gonzo as the superior pass catcher. 🤣

TDs per game

• Gronk 0.67
• Kelce 0.43
• Gonzo 0.41
• Gates 0.31

Yards per game

• Kelce 71.0
• Gronk 64.6 
• Gonzo 56.0
• Gates 50.2

Yards per target

• Gronk 9.7
• Kelce 9.0
• Gates 8.1
• Gonzo 7.5

Yards per catch 

• Gronk 14.9
• Kelce 12.8
• Gates 12.4
• Gonzo 11.4

 

Find the NFL passing yards leaderboard then spot Kerry Collins, Vinny Testaverde, Eli Manning, and Joe Montana.

Then get back to me on just how important compiling yardage stats by playing a long time and not getting hurt too much really is.

 

[Hunter2_1]

4 hours ago, AngusMcFife said:

Gronk is the best all-around TE in NFL history.

Tony Gonzales is the best receiving TE in NFL history. 

How much you value receiving over blocking determines which player you think is better. 

Gronk’s receiving stats are incredible as well though. The fact that Gonzo was a great receiver shouldn’t detract anything from Gronk’s receiving prowess 

 

edit: I see Skippy has just rendered this post obsolete …

Edited December 12, 2021 by Hunter2_1

[Ozzy]

6 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Let us all know which one of these stats shows Gonzo as the superior pass catcher. 🤣

TDs per game

• Gronk 0.67
• Kelce 0.43
• Gonzo 0.41
• Gates 0.31

Yards per game

• Kelce 71.0
• Gronk 64.6 
• Gonzo 56.0
• Gates 50.2

Yards per target

• Gronk 9.7
• Kelce 9.0
• Gates 8.1
• Gonzo 7.5

Yards per catch 

• Gronk 14.9
• Kelce 12.8
• Gates 12.4
• Gonzo 11.4

 

Find the NFL passing yards leaderboard then spot Kerry Collins, Vinny Testaverde, Eli Manning, and Joe Montana.

Then get back to me on just how important compiling yardage stats by playing a long time and not getting hurt too much really is.

 

Of course Gronk has high yards per catch because he caught the ball 726 less times than Gonzalez did and had over 1000 less passes thrown his way so far in his career.  So yeah he will have a higher yard per catch average, so what.  

 

To totally disregard circumstance is pretty odd, he was with Tom Brady his entire career!  It is like saying Lomas Brown and Kevin Glover are two of the best offensive lineman in the history of the NFL.  Both were good and had success but the success was DIRECTLY related to playing with Barry Sanders who made them look a lot better than they actually were.  So the consistency of Jerry Rice means nothing?  He was all about longevity and being productive over a long period of time, but no one is going to even touch that one.  

 

Granted Gronk could have been good on another team but you take away all that Playoff success and Super Bowl success his career looks a bit different, and take Tom Brady out of the mix a lot of those opportunities would not have been there.  But sure if one wants to look at a players entire career and just focus on a short amount of time sure, but seems odd to not look at their entire career start to finish.