Kelce cementing his HOF status

[Gary Cooper]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

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.

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.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by JudasRising20

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.

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

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.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

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.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

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.

And I'd have said exactly the same thing until I did just a little more digging. It's what made me wonder if my fan lenses didn't make the eye test a little more unreliable.

I mean - a 17 year career is a LOOOOOONG career. 270 games.

So you know what that means on a pro-rata basis? 8 more yards/game. It means every other game Tony G had a one more catch than Witten. It means every 8 games he had a TD that Witten didn't have.

I mean that's not nothing, don't get me wrong. It means that yes, Tony Gonzalez was definitely better than Witten. But 'a lot better'? Hmmm....I dunno.

Those two played in pretty similar environments. And for several years they were direct contemporaries. And yes, Witten had a better QB but I've said all the way back to the Dwayne Bowe era - I just don't think that bad quarterbacks impact the production of possession receivers that much, if at all. Because for every ball Damon Huard misfired trying to get the ball to TG, there's another that he forced into triple coverage to his security blanket. Or that he aborted his reads and fired to 88 as soon as he could.

I said it in the Hopkins vs. Hill conversations when people tried to talk about Hopkins having worse QB play and then I pointed out that having a better QB didn't meaningfully impact Hopkins production.

Does it make a player more IMPACTFUL? Sure - but in terms of raw counting stats, I don't think it makes a difference for guys like Witten and Gonzo. They get as much through 'security blanket' and garbage times catches/yards as they give up through missed connections.

And again - I'm not saying that Witten is TGs equal. He isn't. I'm just saying that those guys are awfully damn close in terms of their era, their style of play, their strengths and their production. So if you're willing to use Witten as a proxy for TG when you're 'ranking' guys, it starts to make things a whole lot more straightforward.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by JudasRising20

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.

Do you think Gonzalez played with the same physicality as Gronk?

I think Kelce takes way more hits than Gonzalez did and thus there is no way he will have the longevity.

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Do you think Gonzalez played with the same physicality as Gronk?

I think Kelce takes way more hits than Gonzalez did and thus there is no way he will have the longevity.

I don't know who was more physical than who, but I definitely remember Gonzalez as a physical player. DBs had a hell of a time bringing him down.