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]
Originally Posted by Chiefer8989:
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?
That's impossible to answer because Gronk played with Brady in an offense that didn't have a legit #1 receiver or premiere running back for most of his time with the Patriots. He was their offense for long stretches of time.
What kind of numbers would Kelce have put up with Brady in that offense? I think he would have put up better numbers because he could stay healthy.
What kind of numbers would Gronk have put up with Alex Smith/Mahomes throwing him the ball, with Jamaal Charles at RB and then Hill at WR? I don't think he would have matched Kelce's numbers.
I will take Kelce over Gronk. Every day.
But, I don't think either of them are in the conversation with TG. Tony may not have been as fast as Kelce, or as big as Gronk, but remember that until this year the only player in NFL history with more career catches than TG was Jerry Rice, who may just be the best player in the history of the NFL.
With the exception of his 2nd season, TG caught almost every ball that was in his general vicinity. And it didn't matter if he was covered by a LB, CB, Safety, or two or three guys, he was coming down with the ball.
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare:
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
This. Peak Gronk is better than peak Kelce, mainly because of Kelce's concentration lapses. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Peak Gronk is better than peak Kelce, mainly because of Kelce's concentration lapses.
Here's the truth. I'd expect a Chiefs board to disagree, but Gronk was the superior player.
Kelce's very good in his own right, but Gronk was bigger, stronger, a better blocker, had better hands and, honestly, I'd bet their straight line speed was actually pretty similar. Kelce was quicker and ran better routes.
Where Kelce closes the gap is being healthy. They say the best ability is availability and Gronk just was not available too frequently.
If I'm redrafting the two for their career, I probably go Kelce. If I need one of the two win just a single game, I go Gronk. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
Cool. Random Patriots fans sign up to say Kelce is not in the same league as Gronk. Totally unbiased. Very believable
There’s nothing random about me. There’s also no comparison between the two of them. Check back with us on this question in five more years and maybe you’ll have a reason to actually have that conversation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by aloyouis:
There’s nothing random about me. There’s also no comparison between the two of them. Check back with us on this question in five more years and maybe you’ll have a reason to actually have that conversation.