Me and my friends got into a discussion about if you could take on player on your team who would it be. I believe it was Beckham, they think Gronk. In reality they're both Phenomenal but I think Beckham would be. Who would you take ??
is that generally production from the outside is considered more valuable. Certainly comparing outside WRs to slot receivers, the same catches/yardage will get you a lot more on the outside. Not sure when you factor in other thing a TE does.
I suspect the reason is that high level production outside causes more problems for the defense, pulling it to overprotect the way outside for just one player, opening up the rest of the field.
Beckham is much more versatile and can make do what Gronk does (move the chains and make important catches) but also stretch the field in ways that Gronk can't.
Gronk has to start declining soon due to all the injuries and abuse
Start by taking a look at just this year alone.
Beckham 96 rec 1,450 yards 13 tds
Gronk 72 rec 1,176 yards 11 tds
Now look at their avg for their career
Beckham 14.7 yards a rec 6.9 rec per game 102.0 yards a game 25 tds in 27 games
Gronk 14.6 yards a rec 4.8 rec per game 69.4 yards a game
65 tds in 80 games.
Gronk has played for 6 seasons. Think what Beckhams numbers will be after 6 seasons. Plus Gronk is older and has missed 16 games in his career.
Beckham is much more versatile and can make do what Gronk does (move the chains and make important catches) but also stretch the field in ways that Gronk can't.
And Gronk can do what Beckham can't do, and thats block like a left tackle.
For the record I'd take Beckham due to age and wear and tear on Gronk but theres no one in the league like Gronk. He is simply the best at the position and it's not even close
You can't compare a tight ends receiving numbers to a wide out. How many times does beckham stay in a block? Oh wait that's right he doesn't he's a WR. you simply cannot compare these two positions. Gronk is the best tight end to ever play the game and that's clear. Beckham? We'll wait and see but he surely could end in the top tier of WRs to ever play
because Gronk gets hurt a lot, so even when he plays there's often the "he might have made the play if he was healthy."
Hypothetically, same age, same health - just the players on the field? No it's not obvious
I'd say Gronk has a similar catch radius tho OBJ is quicker / faster / more athletic in the traditional sense (Gronk is PLENTY athletic esp at his size, just not as fast / quick etc). He also lines up everywhere, is a legit deep threat, and breaks tackles. OBJ is big in yards after catch, but not likely as good after contact tho both skills have a similar overall effect. As mentioned abv, the two positions aren't the same so straight receiving production isn't quite apples to apples tho worth the look. A similar not-so-direct comp is the run game, Gronk likely has a more positive effect than OBJ (tho the Pats don't run much)
In the hypothetical above it's a tough call. Maybe more a Q of offensive fit at that point and even then both are the type to be productive / elite in almost any system. You might say OBJ is actually the better fit in NE being so pass happy, while Gronk better in our balanced O...but again splitting hairs for the sake of discussion
RE: Some of the points made by people is ridiculous
You can't compare a tight ends receiving numbers to a wide out. How many times does beckham stay in a block? Oh wait that's right he doesn't he's a WR. you simply cannot compare these two positions. Gronk is the best tight end to ever play the game and that's clear. Beckham? We'll wait and see but he surely could end in the top tier of WRs to ever play
Good point but which position is ultimately more valuable?
I believe WR is much more valuable and a bigger game changer when you have the best.
Right now Beckham is at the top or close to the top for WR.
I have been saying for the last couple of months that he is the best offensive player I have seen in my lifetime, so he would have to be my choice. But, this is a close choice and I would probably take Gronk over other top WRs.
Assuming they both were miraculously always healthy I would pick Gronk
honestly. The guy is a freak and can do everything. He can chip defensive ends, line up wide, line up in the slot, go deep, out jump, and out muscle anyone.
Beckham is amazing no doubt but he can't block, and as great as he is at playing the ball no one is better at blocking out muscling out a defender than Gronk. Since Beckham appears to stay relatively healthy so far, in the real world it is him by a landslide.
But in a hypothetical world where they both are always 100%? Gronk.
Beckham is probably the best wr in football. I love the guy. Love everything about him but Gronk is fucking ridiculously good. Not even close? Stop with that. Gronk is 1986 Bavaro good. Seriously. He's the best TE ever if he can string together another 2 seasons of so and he may not even need to.
One game give me the guy who blocks and catches. I'll take gronk. Beckham has done it for 2 years and never played in one single big game yet. Yes that's unfair but it's true. Gronk has dominated for 5-6 seasons now.
Certainly no one is stupid for choosing either one. I agree with ChaChing, as far as getting the most value out of each player, Gronk's a better fit here and OBJ would be more valuable to NE.
Depends on what the needs of the team are. Dismissing the fact that there is very little chance of Gronk getting bitchslapped by Josh Norman and being taken out of his game so much it embarrasses the franchise and costs his team a possible win against an undefeated team ( we'll say OBJ learned his lesson and won't allow it to happen again) you have the best TE vs the # 3 WR in the league.
As much as I love the way Gronk plays and hate OBJ's attitude, I would probably keep OBJ, he's just an amazing talent that gives us every reason he'll get his head screwed on straight eventually.
He really is unrecoverable. I don't really recall seeing Winslow much in his heyday but none of the great TE of the last thirty years can match his combo of size, speed, hands and strength. Yeah he gets injured a lot, I hope he can stay healthy.
Is a once in a generation talent. That being said, Gronk is so unique. If you replace a guy like Beckham with another true number 1 like Alshon Jeffrey or DeAndre Hopkins etc. there is a drop off but the increase in production you would get from Gronk over almost any other Tight end makes up for that difference and then some.
So if the argument is Beckham and Tye Vs Edelman and Gronk, I may seriously consider taking the latter. Beckham is superior to Edelman, but the difference between Tye and Gronk is even greater. So the production may actually increase even though you are getting rid of the best of the four players.
The injuries do change the argument, IMO. I tried to give my two cents without taking health into consideration because that is a game changer.
Plus, personally I enjoy rooting for Beckham and really dislike Gronk.
RE: Assuming they both were miraculously always healthy I would pick Gronk
honestly. The guy is a freak and can do everything. He can chip defensive ends, line up wide, line up in the slot, go deep, out jump, and out muscle anyone.
Beckham is amazing no doubt but he can't block, and as great as he is at playing the ball no one is better at blocking out muscling out a defender than Gronk. Since Beckham appears to stay relatively healthy so far, in the real world it is him by a landslide.
But in a hypothetical world where they both are always 100%? Gronk.
+1
We've had some great receivers for Eli, but never a real warm blanket. Gronk has a bigger impact on more parts of the game, produces as much if not more than most receivers and costs half the price. Beckham is a generational talent, but so is Gronk. He is a matchup nightmare against all opponents.
He's absolutely un-coverable. You can force the ball to him because he's so over-powering. Both players greatly impact coverage and create so much space for their team mates.
Gronk is the Ultimate mismatch...at his position and generally. Gronk may be one of the top Atletic Freaks Ever---Lebron, Bo Jackson, Babe Ruth...that sort of thing. That exceeds OBJ's freakishness...it doesn't diminish it.
Even accounting for age and health. Blocking is far less valuable than pass receiving (who's the highest paid blocking specialist TE?) and so I think Gronks versatility is outweighed by Beckham's production and field-stretching ability.
Beckham is more valuable to a team in the long-term due to age alone so I think this doesn't get to the heart of your question. I think you might be asking about game impact.
For one game, it's a virtual draw. You can throw Antonio Brown and, when healthy, Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, Leveon Bell, and Jamaal Charles, into the mix for the one game scenario.
However, age and injury risk favor Brown and OBJ above all others in the long-term.
Even accounting for age and health. Blocking is far less valuable than pass receiving (who's the highest paid blocking specialist TE?) and so I think Gronks versatility is outweighed by Beckham's production and field-stretching ability.
The production drop off between Gronk and the next best TE is more significant then the drop off between Beckham and other WRs. Gronk + the 6th or 7th WR would more productive then Beckham + the 6th or 7th TE.
The production drop off between Gronk and the next best TE is more significant then the drop off between Beckham and other WRs. Gronk + the 6th or 7th WR would more productive then Beckham + the 6th or 7th TE.
I disagree. First, that's taking a fantasy approach to determining value but i'll play.
Gronk was 1st in yards but only 70 ahead of Olsen. Walker and Barnidge rounded out those with 1,000+ yards.
Eifert led all TE's with 13 followed by Gronk, Reed, Barnidge with 11. I believe all of these TE's also missed atleast 1 game this year (I could be wrong about Eifert).
Gronk was 8th in receptions.
Beckham was 8th in WR receptions, 5th in yards, and 4th in TDs, all while missing a game.
I think you can make the argument for both, but Beckham still theoretically getting better with the stats to back it up, I don't think there's a better weapon in the game.
Kurt Warner was asked this exact question recently
and said that he would ordinarily never take an all-Pro TE over an all-Pro WR, but Gronk is not only special, he's the best TE ever, in Warner's opinion. Warner would take Gronk over an WR playing today, including Beckham.
He's always a threat to take any play all the way. If I were a defensive coordinator that was planning against playing Gronk, I'd be very concerned; but if I were that same dc planning against playing OBJ, I wouldn't get any sleep.
Gronk. TE production is huge help to an offense, they pick up tougher yards over the middle and in the red zone, and there are less impact players here than at wr (though this is changing).......
Receivers are flourishing with these new offensive rules, and a Beckham replacement, believe it or not, would be easier to find than a Gronk replacement.
With injuries and length of career considerations, Beckham.
because it's conceivable to say that 15 years from now we could be saying Gronk was the best TE ever and Beckham was the best WR ever. They are both that good.
Gronk's a better player, but reminds me a lot of Shockey how he's constantly battling nagging injuries even when he's playing.
I suspect the reason is that high level production outside causes more problems for the defense, pulling it to overprotect the way outside for just one player, opening up the rest of the field.
Beckham 96 rec 1,450 yards 13 tds
Gronk 72 rec 1,176 yards 11 tds
Now look at their avg for their career
Beckham 14.7 yards a rec 6.9 rec per game 102.0 yards a game 25 tds in 27 games
Gronk 14.6 yards a rec 4.8 rec per game 69.4 yards a game
65 tds in 80 games.
Gronk has played for 6 seasons. Think what Beckhams numbers will be after 6 seasons. Plus Gronk is older and has missed 16 games in his career.
And Gronk can do what Beckham can't do, and thats block like a left tackle.
For the record I'd take Beckham due to age and wear and tear on Gronk but theres no one in the league like Gronk. He is simply the best at the position and it's not even close
Hypothetically, same age, same health - just the players on the field? No it's not obvious
I'd say Gronk has a similar catch radius tho OBJ is quicker / faster / more athletic in the traditional sense (Gronk is PLENTY athletic esp at his size, just not as fast / quick etc). He also lines up everywhere, is a legit deep threat, and breaks tackles. OBJ is big in yards after catch, but not likely as good after contact tho both skills have a similar overall effect. As mentioned abv, the two positions aren't the same so straight receiving production isn't quite apples to apples tho worth the look. A similar not-so-direct comp is the run game, Gronk likely has a more positive effect than OBJ (tho the Pats don't run much)
In the hypothetical above it's a tough call. Maybe more a Q of offensive fit at that point and even then both are the type to be productive / elite in almost any system. You might say OBJ is actually the better fit in NE being so pass happy, while Gronk better in our balanced O...but again splitting hairs for the sake of discussion
Good point but which position is ultimately more valuable?
I believe WR is much more valuable and a bigger game changer when you have the best.
Right now Beckham is at the top or close to the top for WR.
Beckham is amazing no doubt but he can't block, and as great as he is at playing the ball no one is better at blocking out muscling out a defender than Gronk. Since Beckham appears to stay relatively healthy so far, in the real world it is him by a landslide.
But in a hypothetical world where they both are always 100%? Gronk.
One game give me the guy who blocks and catches. I'll take gronk. Beckham has done it for 2 years and never played in one single big game yet. Yes that's unfair but it's true. Gronk has dominated for 5-6 seasons now.
Can I have some of what you're mainlining?
I'd rather have ODB
LOL it's OBJ not ODB
Certainly no one is stupid for choosing either one. I agree with ChaChing, as far as getting the most value out of each player, Gronk's a better fit here and OBJ would be more valuable to NE.
Depends on what the needs of the team are. Dismissing the fact that there is very little chance of Gronk getting bitchslapped by Josh Norman and being taken out of his game so much it embarrasses the franchise and costs his team a possible win against an undefeated team ( we'll say OBJ learned his lesson and won't allow it to happen again) you have the best TE vs the # 3 WR in the league.
As much as I love the way Gronk plays and hate OBJ's attitude, I would probably keep OBJ, he's just an amazing talent that gives us every reason he'll get his head screwed on straight eventually.
So if the argument is Beckham and Tye Vs Edelman and Gronk, I may seriously consider taking the latter. Beckham is superior to Edelman, but the difference between Tye and Gronk is even greater. So the production may actually increase even though you are getting rid of the best of the four players.
The injuries do change the argument, IMO. I tried to give my two cents without taking health into consideration because that is a game changer.
Plus, personally I enjoy rooting for Beckham and really dislike Gronk.
Beckham is amazing no doubt but he can't block, and as great as he is at playing the ball no one is better at blocking out muscling out a defender than Gronk. Since Beckham appears to stay relatively healthy so far, in the real world it is him by a landslide.
But in a hypothetical world where they both are always 100%? Gronk.
+1
We've had some great receivers for Eli, but never a real warm blanket. Gronk has a bigger impact on more parts of the game, produces as much if not more than most receivers and costs half the price. Beckham is a generational talent, but so is Gronk. He is a matchup nightmare against all opponents.
Gronk is the Ultimate mismatch...at his position and generally. Gronk may be one of the top Atletic Freaks Ever---Lebron, Bo Jackson, Babe Ruth...that sort of thing. That exceeds OBJ's freakishness...it doesn't diminish it.
For one game, it's a virtual draw. You can throw Antonio Brown and, when healthy, Julio Jones, Dez Bryant, Leveon Bell, and Jamaal Charles, into the mix for the one game scenario.
However, age and injury risk favor Brown and OBJ above all others in the long-term.
Obj is special but you can replicate his numbers. Gronk is uncoverable, would have liked to see luke keuckly go up against him.
Even discounting age and health...
Obj is special but you can replicate his numbers. Gronk is uncoverable, would have liked to see luke keuckly go up against him.
How do you just replicate what Beckham has done, when no one in Giants history, or really the NFL since Moss has done what he's doing?
I disagree. First, that's taking a fantasy approach to determining value but i'll play.
Gronk was 1st in yards but only 70 ahead of Olsen. Walker and Barnidge rounded out those with 1,000+ yards.
Eifert led all TE's with 13 followed by Gronk, Reed, Barnidge with 11. I believe all of these TE's also missed atleast 1 game this year (I could be wrong about Eifert).
Gronk was 8th in receptions.
Beckham was 8th in WR receptions, 5th in yards, and 4th in TDs, all while missing a game.
I think you can make the argument for both, but Beckham still theoretically getting better with the stats to back it up, I don't think there's a better weapon in the game.
Receivers are flourishing with these new offensive rules, and a Beckham replacement, believe it or not, would be easier to find than a Gronk replacement.
With injuries and length of career considerations, Beckham.