Gronk or Kelce
 

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).

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.

**** Grink!!!;;;

At their absolute best I'd take Kelce. At their absolute worst I'd take Kelce.

Gronk was a better blocker

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..

**** Gronk Forever

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.

I like Gronk, but I'd take Kelce.

Gronk was injury prone.

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

Nice!

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.:shrug:

lectern

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.

Tony is the greatest TE of all time.

He was also perhaps the biggest ****ing 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.

Oh, and **** Gronk. Nobody cares.

Give me Vernon Davis or Antonio Gates in their prime.

"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.

Of course, right now I'll take Kelce. Gronk's retired. :(

Aaron Hernandez > Gronk

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.

Is it fair to say that Kelce is a better fit for the Chiefs offense and Gronk is a better fit for the Patriots?

Gronk over Kelce by a **** hair.

What about ranking the Top 10 of all time?

Witten. Sharpe, John Mackey, Tony G, Antonio Gates, Ozzie Newsome, Dave Casper, Jimmy Graham, Heath Miller, Jeremy Shockey, etc etc.

Kelce

Gronk did Tide Pod ads...and probably ate them too.

Kelce does videos of eating really hot salsa and stuff.

Kelce wins.:D

But seriously, Gronk was ****ing insanely good when healthy, just automatic. Kelce has had his ups and downs, but has been pretty much automatic. Not as good a blocker, but not some pussy who won't block by a long shot. When he finally hangs up the cleats, ask me then. Both are HOFers, and Gronk has a longer resume. We'll see. Right now, it's a slight edge to Gronk.

There is no comparison, Gronk is one of if not the best blocking TE in the history of the NFL. He is also one of the best receiving TE's in the history of the NFL. Kelce doesn't even crack the top 5 in NFL history. Try to stay objective, Kelce is not in Gronks class, sorry. Dude got embarrassed in last year's AFC championship game and you want to put him on Gronks level in his prime....lol

What officiating am I getting? Chiefs or Cheatriot. There is a material difference.

100%

Exact same opinion as me, so thanks for posting this! :toast:

Cool. Random Patriots fans sign up to say Kelce is not in the same league as Gronk. Totally unbiased. Very believable

Kelce is just a slow receiver and a moody bitch. Gronk is the greatest TE who ever lived.

"When both were at their best, who was better?"

Answering the question as it's posed: Gronk, period.

Tony Gonzalez.

Kelce is just consistent asf. He is #4 in receiving yards for players this year.... he’s a TE

I agree with most of this. The only thing I disagree on is that Kelce will move ahead of Gronk. The reason is he won't have PMII his entire career. If I have to choose, it's Kelce, hands down.
As to the question is Kelce better than Gonzalez? Take a look at who was throwing to TG in his 1st 4 years and his last 2 in KC. Even if his was a dick to KC fans, you have to admit his stats are pretty impressive. But I still go with Kelce.

GOAT TE is Gonzalez

No offense but only on a Chiefs message board would this be asked. Who is better at thier best? Gronk when healthy was arguably the biggest mismatch in NFL history. His clutch big performances (including playoffs and SBs) are legendary. His blocking was as good if not better as most offensive lineman. His catch radius was as big as it gets - and once he caught it good luck tackling him.

His only downfall was the injuries, Kelce has him on that.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bWME6WS_t-Y" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UFrpIUtPaMI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I thought this was going to be a difficult question, like "who would you rather hold your beer while you bang a pornstar, Gronk or Kelce?"

Now that is tricky. I feel like Gronk would want a lot of high fives, but Kelce would talk a lot more about what you were doing and stuff?

I think I'd have to go Kelce, because at the end of the day I don't think I could trust Gronk to remember the beer wasn't his and sip it.

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.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

I’m definitely biased. Kelce is the better player and he is able to stay healthy. Gronk was pretty good I will admit.

This. 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.

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.

*Looks at your post count*
Yep, random

Silly.