Two great TE's. When both were at their best, who was better? Again, this isn't about who you would rather have long term. Or necessarily about better career. Someone can have a better career yet not necessarily be better (For example Brady has had a better career than Montana. But Joe was better). [Reply]
Very close, if health isn't an issue, i think Gronk is slightly better.
Much better at making contested catches, and red zone catches.
That being said though Kelce is damn special in his own right. Never seen a TE nearly as good as he is at running the football. Both are hall of famers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Megatron96:
As TEs they were pretty close. Gronk had really good hands, and his size and speed made him unstoppable 99% of the time.
Kelce is a slightly smaller version of Gronk. Maybe even faster. Not as good a blocker though.
But Kelce has been far more available, and IMO that makes him the better TE.
It doesn't really matter how great a player is if they can't be relied on to play week in and week out.
I pretty much agree with all of this. I think the answer is that if you are guaranteed to have either of them at their peak, and only need them for a "winner take all game", or a season, I'll take Gronk without a doubt. And that's actually over ALL TEs ever!
If you're talking about drafting them, or being subject to the vagaries of their health, then it's Tony G. for all time, and if forced to choose between just Gronk/Kelce, it's definitely a serious consideration to go Kelce. [Reply]
Gronk a better blocker.
Gronk had better consistent hands.
Kelce more athletic
Kelce better speed
Kelce runs better routes
Both are gamers in the red zone with Gronk having the slight edge only because TB was throwing to him and Kelce had Smith BUT things have changed in KC:-)
Maybe when it is all said and done for Kelce, PM2 will have vaulted Kelce above Gronk and make it into the HOF with better stats.:-) [Reply]
Kelce in my view is better than Tony Gonzalez was in his prime and many people think TG was the goat at the TE position. Gronk was a force to be reckoned with but often injured. It's close but I still take Kelce for being so clutch and more polished offensively. [Reply]
He was also perhaps the biggest fucking asshole towards fans that I've ever seen from a Chiefs player. He wasn't just unwilling to be around them... he was actually a straight up MEAN son of a bitch towards them.
Since he has recently in so many words chosen to be recognized as an Atlanta Falcon in spite of being a Chief for over a decade, I don't really give a shit about him anymore.
Kelce is cooler, better at YAC, and he's more entertaining to watch. He loves this team and the city, and it would take something sudden and monumental for him to one day turn his back on KC like Tony did.
Originally Posted by Chiefshrink:
It's a wash at this point.
Gronk a better blocker.
Gronk had better consistent hands.
Kelce more athletic
Kelce better speed
Kelce runs better routes
"more athletic"? Like sleeker and faster maybe, but Gronk was bigger and more powerful. I guess I'm confused about how you define "athletic". Is Julio Jones more "athletic" than Khalil Mack? Gronk's career YPC is better than Kelce's (15.1 to 12.9).
I get that they both play TE, but it's a tough comparison. It's alot of apples and oranges. They play the position very differently. [Reply]
It was Gronks blocking of guys outweighing him by 70 and sometimes 100 lbs that took a toll on is body. Bill B used him up and spit him out. Should have used him better in his latter years but Belichick is kinda know for that. [Reply]
