Cool.

Maybe someday. But the case is still being made right now that Gronk is the greatest TE to ever play because of his elite receiving skills plus his incredible blocking skills in combination.

It's the alchemy of the two skillsets in one package that make Gronk a serious candidate for greatness, not one vs. the other.

Now someday maybe TEs will become so receiver-oriented that they won't be asked to block anymore, or maybe the league will install a reg that prohibits TEs from blocking or whatever. But for now, at least as i hear it discussed, blocking is still integral to what a TE does.

It’s the exact opposite.

Anyone who discounts blocking when comparing two legends like kelce and gronk isn’t taking the debate seriously.

I am still picking kelce. But without a doubt it is a huge factor when comparing two tight ends who are both elite receivers.

Kelce has 26 catches on the season. 3 tds. 21 first downs.

When the yards aren’t close nobody will care about blocking. Kelce’s job is to make plays catching the ball and he is literally a #1 WR level producer catching the ball in the NFL.

His blocking is more then adequate.

All the guys on the top TE are judged by catching the ball. You yourself used Gates as some level of comparison. He was known for one thing.

Blocking is cool and all but it’s not catching 10 passes for 120 and a TD.

Gronk gets injured falling out of bed every morning. Same with Antonio Gates. Those guys were both great but too fragile.

Meanwhile, Kelce and Gonzalez had crazy durability.

Gronk is in the discussion for 3 reasons:

1) Rings (thanks Brady)
2) TDs (no question he's an elite red zone weapon)
3) Age

It sucks but there's no escaping it - Travis Kelce wasn't playing until he was 25 years old. Gronk and Tony G were 21.

That's 3-4 more years those guys have to rack up numbers in their respective athletic primes. Gronk had 42 touchdowns by the time he was 25. He got a head start that would be considered an outstanding career for 90% of the TEs to ever play. Tony G had a 20 touchdown and 3K yard head start.

Gronk also has rings and an east coast media bias to help him out.

But I'm still not sure what this has to do with your assertion that Travis Kelce isn't the athlete either of those guys were. Because you've still yet to even attempt to argue that fact other than provide a sort of back-door "well if he WERE the athlete these guys were, he'd blow them out of the water" sort of logically untenable mess.

Facts.

If Gronk could've been a lot healthier over his career, his numbers would've been even more outrageous. In all, Gronk missed 36 games over his 12-year career as well as the entire 2019 season. If he'd played in like 90% of those missed games, he'd probably have another 3,600 yds, for a total of nearly 13,000 yds, second to just TG in that regard. And another 16 or so TDs, for a total of 108? (Btw, isn't ludicrious to look at those numbers and Gonzalez would still in all likelihood be no.1 in both those stats? Crazy)

Gronk was a mutant freak, but a fragile one.

Kelce's gonna be an interesting hybrid of the two from a production standpoint when all is said and done.

Won't have that insane 80 game stretch like Gronk had (65 TDs in 80 games...just - wow). But he'll blow past him in most productivity categories because of longevity. Meanwhile pick any sample size of games and Kelce's productivity will beat TGs over the same stretch and yet he ain't gonna play 270 of a possible 272 games over a 17 year career.

You really do have to look at Tony G's durability and longevity and just shake your head. After playing 240 career games, the guy still averaged right at 900 yards/season his last 2 seasons.

Wanna know what's incredible? Travis Kelce STILL hasn't played half as many games as Tony Gonzalez played in his career. I mean Gonzalez was just a war horse.

Truth.

TG spoiled Chiefs fans beyond recognition, not only with his level of execution, but with his sheer reliability. Just a freak. Maybe THE freak.

Kelce is the second coming, kind of. Somehow KC lucked into another HOF TE, and not only that, Travis will go down statistically as the second-best TE in NFL history.

But in my book, Travis is the better of the two because he almost singlehandedly brought the Chiefs their second SB victory. His level of play during the playoffs was beyond elite (after that first quarter and a half of the HOU game, of course). As much as Mahomes, Travis deserves credit for bringing that beautiful trophy home. He was just a monster.

Tony probably gets a ring if he has Mahomes at QB. I have a hard time using rings as part of the argument.

For me it's just a question of peak vs. duration. Do I value Tony's impossibly long prime more than Kelce's impossibly high standard during his peak?

My answer is Kelce and the reason why comes down to two words, words we've used in this very thread: Jason. Witten.

Jason Witten is the nearest thing the league has ever seen to TG in terms of reliable production and longevity. Witten played in 271 games to Tony's 270. he had 1220 receptions to TGs 1320. 13K yards to Tony's 15K.

He was, by virtually any measure, about 90% of what Gonzalez was and in a virtually indistinguishable manner.

Did you EVER concern yourself with Jason Witten? Was he ever someone you thought to yourself 'man, we have GOT to gameplan for Witten or he'll just destroy us'? I don't believe either of those things to be true.

And can Jason Witten say "hey, I just never had a quarterback I could win a championship with?" I don't believe this to be true either. Witten had Pro Bowl quarterbacks throwing the ball to him at various points throughout his prime. And in the end it just didn't mean that much.

So it makes me ask, in all sincerity - did Tony G do THAT much more for us than Jason Witten did for the Cowboys? And since neither team ever won a damn thing - did what they did really move the needle as much as we think it did?

At a point I have to wonder if BOTH of those guys greatness isn't dependent on being compilers. And in the process of compiling those stats, did they really make a major difference?

We have a hard time answering the question when it's Kelce vs. Tony but none of us would hesitate for a millisecond if it's Kelce vs. Witten. And Witten is a hell of a lot closer to Tony across the board than he is to Kelce.

So...should this question actually be that difficult afterall?

I kinda think that maybe it shouldn't be.

Can't argue with any of that. Though imo, TG was a lot better than Witten, the eye test, if you will.

But yeah, Witten, though a very solid TE, never scared me. He was never going to take over a game. He'd just do Witten things.

TG was far more athletic and so could and did on occasion, but Kelce seems capable of doing it nearly every week. But then, the game is quite different than it was when TG was in his prime. The middle was a much more dangerous place back then.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...31cce2c507.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I used gates as a point of comparison based on pure athletic ability. You’re proving my point that the reason nobody puts him into the TE conversation was because he was a lousy blocker. I used witten as an example because he was an outstanding blocker but while he was once in the GOAT conversation he never really could get legs because he wasn’t even close to the elite level of other TEs as a receiver. I am using one attribute to discuss these guys, not saying these guys are in the conversation for GOAT. They’re not.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that. I think there is a ton to be said about playing the position the right way and I believe kelce did it better than anybody in history. Can you imagine if Jerry rice had speed or size like Randy moss? Rice isn’t even close to the most athletic receiver among the all time greats. That doesn’t mean athletic ability would’ve added a whole ton of stats to an insanely productive career. In fact I think kelce in a lot of ways is a more athletic version of Jerry rice. Much of their success is due to always being in the right place, running slick routes, and having outstanding ball instincts. Because they’re both absolutely elite in those areas.

While kelce had a head start over gonzo he’s also born a little bit on first base. As was gronk. Neither player has played much with a bad qb and they played in an aerial passing era. Both played for HOF coaches and kelce lined up next to a legit top tier WR. TG didn’t have those advantages. In fact I’d say his TD totals given his red zone skills would have been significantly better. Again, Without a shadow of a doubt im still taking kelce but it’s not quite the gap you’re making it to be. What gonzo did with the kind of talent he was surrounded with is really incredible too.

I know this much. If Travis had Mahomes when he started he would be passing TG's records. All of them.