POLL Is Gronk the best TE ever?

[Rock Strongo]

Gronk's really good. But Tony Gonzalez was a beast that didn't get hurt as much (or least that i can remember).

The game today also uses a different type of TE and passes much more.


Also Ditka! Always Ditka!


Ditka!

Granted gonzalez was healthier, but gronks done more in fewer games. 22 more TD's in far fewer games played, a crazy WR like YPC for his career at 15.1.

did teams game plan on how to stop gonzalez like they do gronk?

i dunno.

i cant recall ever seeing gonzalez take over games for his teams like i and we have seen gronk do.

 

[SJ76]

Granted gonzalez was healthier, but gronks done more in fewer games. 22 more TD's in far fewer games played, a crazy WR like YPC for his career at 15.1.

did teams game plan on how to stop gonzalez like they do gronk?

i dunno.

i cant recall ever seeing gonzalez take over games for his teams like i and we have seen gronk do.

Definitely a different game. The hit on Gronk that drew the flag against the jags is no flag in Gonzalez era.

Stats sure Gronk looks better. They can be misleading especially in a pass happy league compared to back then

 

[SJ76]

It's really easy. Somebody go look at the amount of attempts by Gonzalez QB versus the attempts by Brady and average it out.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Definitely a different game. The hit on Gronk that drew the flag against the jags is no flag in Gonzalez era.

Stats sure Gronk looks better. They can be misleading especially in a pass happy league compared to back then

yup, absolutely. eras matter.

that hit on gronk should have been a penalty back then, but the league wasnt as crazy about health. i think thats immaterial to this.

gonzalez wasnt a down field threat. he was a guy under 15 yards. gronk is a downfield threat. hes a mismatch for DB's and linebackers.

thats where their games differ IMO. no one can stop gronk downfield unless they hurt him. i dont think the same could be said for tony g.

 

[ehb5]

Its Gronk and its not even close

 

[PatsFan2003]

The best "classic" Tight End I've personally seen since John Mackey. A lot of recent TE's are more receivers than Tight Ends. Maybe that's unfair but I think it's true. Gronk is just more well-rounded as a TE and he still puts up gaudy numbers.

 

[Calm]

Two players, same era:

Player A - 121 G/89 GS/556 REC/6800 YD/69 TD
Player B - 102 G/89 GS/474 REC/7179 YD/76 TD

If one of these is the BEST EVER the other must be like, 2nd best or something right?

 

[Clayton]

I find it interesting that people are bringing up that he has Tom Brady. Do you know who the starting TE was before Gronk? The TE averaged better #s for the Browns in 2010-14 than he did from 2004-09 for the Patriots.

Tom Brady literally just came back against the top pass D in the league with Danny Amendola and had the greatest comeback of all time in the Super Bowl last year without Gronk.

People dismissing Tom Brady in this equation are absolutely nuts.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Gronk is certainly in question for the best ever.... The only thing that hurts him IMO is even though he has been the Pats BEST receiver for most of his career, He has never been the reason why they win... He seems to make a dominant team MORE dominant...

 

[iowajerms]

Tom Brady literally just came back against the top pass D in the league with Danny Amendola and had the greatest comeback of all time in the Super Bowl last year without Gronk.

People dismissing Tom Brady in this equation are absolutely nuts.

I am not dismissing him, but a great TE isn't so much a result of good QB. TE are the utility guys of offense and really don't have a huge impact on the team's success. TE's are not the go-to guys. If he is, that offense has problems.

Tom Brady is a great field general, probably best ever. But Gronk would have elite stats in Cleveland, Miami, Denver, Jets, etc. Brady doesn't rely on him as much as KC relied on Gonzo.

 

[The Derski]

Every time I come to this site now I see this thread near the top. You botards need to get a better hobby.

 

[Rock Strongo]

Two players, same era:

Player A - 121 G/89 GS/556 REC/6800 YD/69 TD
Player B - 102 G/89 GS/474 REC/7179 YD/76 TD

If one of these is the BEST EVER the other must be like, 2nd best or something right?

no. ones jimmy graham. he said he was a WR, remember?

the money?

hes not in gronks class. 4 really good years and hes been healthy.

 

[BottleWalk]

There are only two things keeping him from being the unanimous GOAT
1) he hasn't played for long enough and so doesn't have the career numbers and such that Gonzalez, Gates, and Witten have. If he played as long as they played he would have much more impressive numbers, clearly.
2) it could be argued that with/without him the Pats have always been successful.

The second argument is stupid. They're the pats. Without Brady they've even been pretty successful. This doesn't keep Brady from being probably the greatest quarterback ever to walk the earth. Furthermore, none of those other tight ends have rings or were even that close to getting them (Gonzalez nearly went to the SB with Atlanta, but it's Atlanta, so they wouldn't have won anyway lol), so in general a tight end doesn't seem to be a position it's reasonable to judge on the basis of team success. In history, you can say the same of Kellen Winslow and Ozzie Newsome...

The first argument is just about legacy. If you view accumulating stupidly large piles of numbers over a long period of time as important for GOAT status then he's not there yet.

However the one thing that is clear is that his level of play and his productivity in the time he has played is vastly better than any tight end in the history of the game in any offense ever and it's been long enough to show it's not a fluke. I would call him the greatest tight end of all time and I don't think it's a discussion.

 

[Rock Strongo]

There are only two things keeping him from being the unanimous GOAT
1) he hasn't played for long enough and so doesn't have the career numbers and such that Gonzalez, Gates, and Witten have. If he played as long as they played he would have much more impressive numbers, clearly.
2) it could be argued that with/without him the Pats have always been successful.

The second argument is stupid. They're the pats. Without Brady they've even been pretty successful. This doesn't keep Brady from being probably the greatest quarterback ever to walk the earth. Furthermore, none of those other tight ends have rings or were even that close to getting them (Gonzalez nearly went to the SB with Atlanta, but it's Atlanta, so they wouldn't have won anyway lol), so in general a tight end doesn't seem to be a position it's reasonable to judge on the basis of team success. In history, you can say the same of Kellen Winslow and Ozzie Newsome...

The first argument is just about legacy. If you view accumulating stupidly large piles of numbers over a long period of time as important for GOAT status then he's not there yet.

However the one thing that is clear is that his level of play and his productivity in the time he has played is vastly better than any tight end in the history of the game in any offense ever and it's been long enough to show it's not a fluke. I would call him the greatest tight end of all time and I don't think it's a discussion.

RE the bolded...

the team is 1-1 in SB's with him playing.

 

[BottleWalk]

RE the bolded...

the team is 1-1 in SB's with him playing.

I think that's an irrelevant stat. I think anyone who thinks it's relevant or that the pats are better without him is an idiot. And hey, Skip Bayless made that argument recently....and we know anything Bayless argues has to be a stupid idea lol!

In any case he was not very healthy leading up to the NYG SB and it may have been a factor on the Blackburne int I recall.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Someone here mentioned Gronks blocking skills and that may be the factor that makes him better then Gonzalez. Gonzalez couldn't block worth a damn, a damn little bit of a damn

 

[Clayton]

But Gronk would have elite stats in Cleveland, Miami, Denver, Jets, etc..

I think he would, too. I'm just not sure his stats would be head and shoulders above other players.

Passing Yards are interesting sometimes. There is also the Big Ben pass yards thing:


"Counting the postseason, Roethlisberger is 29-25 as a starter when he has at least 300 passing yards. That equates to a winning percentage of .537 that pales in comparison to the .716 winning percentage he has when he passes for fewer than 300 yards (111-44, counting the postseason)."

I think Ben went 3-1 after that point with 300 yards so 32-26 when passing for 300+ yards compared to his higher percentage when the Steelers were able to rely on defense.

The more I watch football, the more I feel like defense and coaching always gets overlooked. Maybe Gronk is the best TE ever and maybe TE just isnt all that important.

 

[Rock Strongo]

I think that's an irrelevant stat. I think anyone who thinks it's relevant or that the pats are better without him is an idiot. And hey, Skip Bayless made that argument recently....and we know anything Bayless argues has to be a stupid idea lol!

In any case he was not very healthy leading up to the NYG SB and it may have been a factor on the Blackburne int I recall.

if gronk was healthy is 2011, the score may have been different.

i say that with a certain level of certainty.

and yes you are right on the INT.

 

[BottleWalk]

I think he would, too. I'm just not sure his stats would be head and shoulders above other players.

Passing Yards are interesting sometimes. There is also the Big Ben pass yards thing:


"Counting the postseason, Roethlisberger is 29-25 as a starter when he has at least 300 passing yards. That equates to a winning percentage of .537 that pales in comparison to the .716 winning percentage he has when he passes for fewer than 300 yards (111-44, counting the postseason)."

I think Ben went 3-1 after that point with 300 yards so 32-26 when passing for 300+ yards compared to his higher percentage when the Steelers were able to rely on defense.

The more I watch football, the more I feel like defense and coaching always gets overlooked. Maybe Gronk is the best TE ever and maybe TE just isnt all that important.

Most qbs who throw for more than about 350 yards in a game do so because they were losing throughout and had to pass just to keep it close, or it was a very close game/shootout to begin with.

If you throw for 400 yards and your team blew out the other team, it's probably because the other team has a god-awful defense and was getting shredded early. Under normal circumstances, once you get to a certain total you may be up by enough points that you don't need to pass often enough to get to such a high total.

For this reason I take these sorts of statistics very lightly.

 

[Clayton]

The second argument is stupid. They're the pats. Without Brady they've even been pretty successful. This doesn't keep Brady from being probably the greatest quarterback ever to walk the earth.

So its all just a system?

But because they're in the system they're also the greatest?

I feel like if both are true then the Patriots are some sort of imbalance on the level of UCONN Women's Basketball.