When healthy, Gronk was about as good as they get. Kelce is pretty damn close, though, and he doesn't get injured near as often.
[Reply]

Fuck Grink!!!;;;
[Reply]

At their absolute best I'd take Kelce. At their absolute worst I'd take Kelce.
[Reply]

Gronk was a better blocker
[Reply]

Gronks career is atleast partially due to Tom Brady throwing dimes. Kelce peaked and lead the league in YAC with smith throwing down and behind him..
[Reply]

Fuck Gronk Forever
[Reply]

Dare I ask if Kelce is on the level of Tony Gonzalez in his prime? I'm sure I'll get hell for even asking.
[Reply]

I like Gronk, but I'd take Kelce.

Gronk was injury prone.
[Reply]

Yeah he’s in the same league for sure.
Tony had better hands, but Kelce is harder to cover and gets more YAC.
[Reply]

Nice!
[Reply]

As Jeopardy contestants, I'd take the empty lecturn.
[Reply]

But that's not the question. At their absolute peak who was better? Who would most NFL fans take for one do or die game?
[Reply]

Gronk, and I hate saying that but he had more reliable hands, didn't have that mental lapse and drop a routine catch like Travis does.

Rob was a better blocker too
[Reply]

I think as receivers they're pretty darn close to equal.

But Kelce isn't anywhere near the blocker Gronk was. He was freaking outstanding. Great at it, and very willing to do it. Wham blocks inside against 300+ lb. DTs? Many times. Singled up against very good pass rushing DEs or LBs? Yep, could do that too.

That stuff doesn't show up in the stat sheet. Nor does the impact it has on your gameplan and offensive strategy. With Gronk being an elite receiver or blocker, if he was at the natural TE position, instead of flexed out, defenses had NO IDEA from that alone whether it was a pass or run. He could kill you either way. That's damn rare for a TE.

If they'd both been WRs, then you could have the debate. Since they're TEs, though, it's Gronk.
[Reply]