Gronk v. Graham. The return of the Ding

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
12,135
Given that cheerleaders has depended on Eagles players coming in for the last gajillion years, I am a bit skeptical that this woman would have made this up. I am sure she is facing a lot of bullshit from alot of people. Let's see what happens when the facts come out, but I hope the truth surfaces quickly.
Yeah, thats great. But more importantly, can we agree that Gronk is better than Jimmy Graham now?
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, thats great. But more importantly, can we agree that Gronk is better than Jimmy Graham now?
I think the statement I was contesting was "Gronkowski is clearly better than anyone by a broad margin." Since 2010:

Jimmy Graham - 5,357 yards
Rob Gronkowski - 5,555 yards

Just hold off on re-Gronking a little while, eh?
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
6,178
I think the statement I was contesting was "Gronkowski is clearly better than anyone by a broad margin." Since 2010:

Jimmy Graham - 5,357 yards
Rob Gronkowski - 5,555 yards

Just hold off on re-Gronking a little while, eh?
So a TE's blocking ability is irrelevant?
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,351
deep inside Guido territory
I think the statement I was contesting was "Gronkowski is clearly better than anyone by a broad margin." Since 2010:

Jimmy Graham - 5,357 yards
Rob Gronkowski - 5,555 yards

Just hold off on re-Gronking a little while, eh?
Graham has played in 9 more games and targeted 90 more times over this period of time and Gronk still has more receiving yards(and 12 more TDs) than him. I'd say there's Gronkowski on one level then everybody else.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If he is able to show up on the field, maybe. But health is an attribute, which was part of the point I was arguing in the debate KFP was referencing (in addition to their proximity as players), and Gronkowski - for all kinds of weird reasons - struggles to stay healthy. When he is not on the field he isn't helping, and even when he plays hurt he can negatively impact the team. Gronkowski being on the field in Super Bowl LXVI (I think.....the second one vs. the Giants.....) was, to me, a material factor in them losing. He wasn't healthy and the Giants figured that out in the first quarter.

Even today, with Graham coming off of a crappy year and Gronkowski at the height of his powers it is not clear to me that Gronkowski will end up with better career numbers than Graham. We are all grown ups here, we can say that Gronkowski is highly likely to be enhanced somewhat significantly (for those reading me for the first time, I believe that every single player in the NFL takes PEDs or has taken them at some point, even kickers and punters. I am not saying that Gronkowski is doing something that no one else does, but I do think he is above average in his use, just like a number of Eagles and other players), so how will he age? We'll see.

But to put this to rest, I am absolutely not saying that Rob Grownkowski is a bad player. He is an amazing player. He took the Antonio Gates model and multiplied it times 5. He has fantastic hands and he uses his body aggressively in coverage to create space (and, admittedly, he gets called for it, but like all receivers who do this well, he gets away with it way more than he draws flags, which is the key). He bangs porn stars and does dumb shit with his brothers, there is a lot to like about the guy. But Jimmy Graham is also an amazing TE. They both are more likely to end up in the HoF than not, they just need to stay healthy.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
50,351
deep inside Guido territory
If he is able to show up on the field, maybe. But health is an attribute, which was part of the point I was arguing in the debate KFP was referencing (in addition to their proximity as players), and Gronkowski - for all kinds of weird reasons - struggles to stay healthy. When he is not on the field he isn't helping, and even when he plays hurt he can negatively impact the team. Gronkowski being on the field in Super Bowl LXVI (I think.....the second one vs. the Giants.....) was, to me, a material factor in them losing. He wasn't healthy and the Giants figured that out in the first quarter.

Even today, with Graham coming off of a crappy year and Gronkowski at the height of his powers it is not clear to me that Gronkowski will end up with better career numbers than Graham. We are all grown ups here, we can say that Gronkowski is highly likely to be enhanced somewhat significantly (for those reading me for the first time, I believe that every single player in the NFL takes PEDs or has taken them at some point, even kickers and punters. I am not saying that Gronkowski is doing something that no one else does, but I do think he is above average in his use, just like a number of Eagles and other players), so how will he age? We'll see.

But to put this to rest, I am absolutely not saying that Rob Grownkowski is a bad player. He is an amazing player. He took the Antonio Gates model and multiplied it times 5. He has fantastic hands and he uses his body aggressively in coverage to create space (and, admittedly, he gets called for it, but like all receivers who do this well, he gets away with it way more than he draws flags, which is the key). He bangs porn stars and does dumb shit with his brothers, there is a lot to like about the guy. But Jimmy Graham is also an amazing TE. They both are more likely to end up in the HoF than not, they just need to stay healthy.
Oh I agree that Graham is a great player too. They both have put up amazing numbers. I just think the numbers I put out there combined with the decided advantage over Graham in the running game that Gronkowski should be considered the best at the position. In Graham's case, will he be able to put up the numbers in Seattle that he did in New Orleans? Pete Carroll had a hard time adjusting to his skillset and where to line him up on the field this season. I think going forward they will be more and more of a passing team and will use him properly.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Neither of them are called upon to do a lot of blocking frankly. Both are TEs in name only, as was demonstrated in Graham's arbitration claim (although rejected by the NFL arbitrator, but I think I know your thoughts on that process.... ;-) )
Gronkowski doesn't do a lot of blocking?

Outside of maybe Brady, Gronk has been the most important part of the Patriots running game since he was drafted. Gronk has acted as a run blocker on more than 30% of the snaps he has played in his career - Graham is at about 18%.

Graham is an oversized slot receiver. Gronk is not.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Gronkowski doesn't do a lot of blocking?

Outside of maybe Brady, Gronk has been the most important part of the Patriots running game since he was drafted. Gronk has acted as a run blocker on more than 30% of the snaps he has played in his career - Graham is at about 18%.

Graham is an oversized slot receiver. Gronk is not.
There is so much stupid in here it hurts.

So if Gronk is teh awesome at run blocking, and so much better than Graham then surely the run rankings for the Pats will be better than the run rankings for Graham's teams, right?

Not so much. Here are the run DVOA rankings for each player's team since they started:

Year Gronk Graham
2015 12 3
2014 14 9
2013 6 19
2012 4 11
2011 4 2
2010 2 21

So in recent years Graham's teams have run better than Gronk's. But in 2013 the Pats were much better......and Gronk was out injured for 9 games of the season. In 2011 the Pats were very close to elite.....and Gronk was out for 5 games of the season. Graham played all 16 games that year and his team were elite in the run game. Obviously in their rookie year Gronk's team was FAR better than Graham's, but neither player was on the field for a ton of plays (Gronk had 546 yards receiving and Graham had 356).

My point here is that neither of these guys do a ton of blocking or work the run game in a way that really moves the needle, that just isn't what they do. Gronk will put up a highlight reel block every now and again, but in the grand scheme it doesn't add that much value. Their receiving yards are really 98% of their value, that is the nature of how they are deployed and also how they play their own games.

If Rob Gronkowski was fully healthy and I needed to win one football game tomorrow, I would pick Rob Gronkowski. But if I were starting an expansion team tomorrow (Helllloooooo Munich!!!!!!) I don't see the run blocking numbers leaping off the page to the point that they make "who will have the better next 5 years" a clear choice in any way. If my GM (I'm a part of the franchise more in a ceremonial function, kind of like the Emperor of Japan, or the Queen. My job is to make sure things run smoothly and to bang your mom) wanted to draft one of them over the other I would say "They are both awesome. They both have tremendous strengths and some weaknesses. Take whichever one you want."
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,973
If we're going to use FO stats, the fact that Gronk has rated higher than Graham in both DYAR and DVOA in every single season except for 2013 seems like a salient point to mention. It hasn't been particularly close either.

Let's look only at DYAR, since it's a counting stat and not a rate stat, so health is baked into it. One metric, sure, but this isn't even close (apologies for the giant gap, not sure how to fix the formatting):
YearGronkGraham
201024391
2011459 (!!!)244
201227196
201391223
2014237124
2015235110
Total1536888
Avg256148
Median240117

Maybe you'd find a couple GMs who would pick Graham over Gronk because of health risks, or off-field stuff, or some other exaggerated nitpick. But I think the overwhelming majority of GMs, if not all of them, would take Gronk over Graham without hesitation. The notion that this is a 50/50 proposition or a legitimate debate seems pretty ludicrous to me.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
My point here is that neither of these guys do a ton of blocking or work the run game in a way that really moves the needle, that just isn't what they do. Gronk will put up a highlight reel block every now and again, but in the grand scheme it doesn't add that much value.
That's your point, but its wrong. As you said, "so much stupid it hurts".


Yes, the receiving is more valuable, but the idea that Gronk isn't blocking regularly is patently absurd.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
There is so much stupid in here it hurts.

So if Gronk is teh awesome at run blocking, and so much better than Graham then surely the run rankings for the Pats will be better than the run rankings for Graham's teams, right?

Not so much. Here are the run DVOA rankings for each player's team since they started:

Year Gronk Graham
2015 12 3
2014 14 9
2013 6 19
2012 4 11
2011 4 2
2010 2 21

So in recent years Graham's teams have run better than Gronk's. But in 2013 the Pats were much better......and Gronk was out injured for 9 games of the season. In 2011 the Pats were very close to elite.....and Gronk was out for 5 games of the season. Graham played all 16 games that year and his team were elite in the run game. Obviously in their rookie year Gronk's team was FAR better than Graham's, but neither player was on the field for a ton of plays (Gronk had 546 yards receiving and Graham had 356).

My point here is that neither of these guys do a ton of blocking or work the run game in a way that really moves the needle, that just isn't what they do. Gronk will put up a highlight reel block every now and again, but in the grand scheme it doesn't add that much value. Their receiving yards are really 98% of their value, that is the nature of how they are deployed and also how they play their own games.

If Rob Gronkowski was fully healthy and I needed to win one football game tomorrow, I would pick Rob Gronkowski. But if I were starting an expansion team tomorrow (Helllloooooo Munich!!!!!!) I don't see the run blocking numbers leaping off the page to the point that they make "who will have the better next 5 years" a clear choice in any way. If my GM (I'm a part of the franchise more in a ceremonial function, kind of like the Emperor of Japan, or the Queen. My job is to make sure things run smoothly and to bang your mom) wanted to draft one of them over the other I would say "They are both awesome. They both have tremendous strengths and some weaknesses. Take whichever one you want."
This is an almost comically bad way to look at the effectiveness of one player in the running game. It's like the identities and skills of the offensive linemen and running backs don't even matter.

Graham will be thirty in November and is coming off a torn patellar tendon. Blocking does not even have to be considered to say that it's a poor bet that he will outproduce the 27-year-old Gronk over the next five years.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
This is an almost comically bad way to look at the effectiveness of one player in the running game. It's like the identities and skills of the offensive linemen and running backs don't even matter.

Graham will be thirty in November and is coming off a torn patellar tendon. Blocking does not even have to be considered to say that it's a poor bet that he will outproduce the 27-year-old Gronk over the next five years.
You have missed the point. If a TE's run blocking were important, and meaningful would you not expect to see it in some of the overarching run metrics? And you don't. These two are not used in the same way a HS Tight end, or even a Mike Ditka type play/played the game. Rob Gronkowski may give better massages than Jimmy Graham, but it isn't all that meaningful to the run game given the offenses they are in.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If we're going to use FO stats, the fact that Gronk has rated higher than Graham in both DYAR and DVOA in every single season except for 2013 seems like a salient point to mention. It hasn't been particularly close either.

Let's look only at DYAR, since it's a counting stat and not a rate stat, so health is baked into it. One metric, sure, but this isn't even close (apologies for the giant gap, not sure how to fix the formatting):
YearGronkGraham
201024391
2011459 (!!!)244
201227196
201391223
2014237124
2015235110
Total1536888
Avg256148
Median240117

Maybe you'd find a couple GMs who would pick Graham over Gronk because of health risks, or off-field stuff, or some other exaggerated nitpick. But I think the overwhelming majority of GMs, if not all of them, would take Gronk over Graham without hesitation. The notion that this is a 50/50 proposition or a legitimate debate seems pretty ludicrous to me.
I'm generally not a big believer in DYAR outside of the RB position and the QB position and even there it gets a bit fudgy. but even if the metric is flawed, these are pretty big differences. Let's see how the two of them do on health going forward.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
You have missed the point. If a TE's run blocking were important, and meaningful would you not expect to see it in some of the overarching run metrics? And you don't. These two are not used in the same way a HS Tight end, or even a Mike Ditka type play/played the game. Rob Gronkowski may give better massages than Jimmy Graham, but it isn't all that meaningful to the run game given the offenses they are in.
I thought the larger point was that Graham is nearly Gronk's equal given Gronk's health.

Finding direct numbers comparing the two in the number of snaps blocked is proving hard without PFF but in 2013, Gronk blocked on 132 of his 390 (33.8%) snaps played vs. 210 of 879 (23%) for Graham. Last year the Patriots ran over 1,000 plays -- if Gronk run blocks on even 30% of those snaps we are talking about 300 running plays. Do you know how many running plays the Bears had in Ditka's best receiving season? 356.

I think it requires bias to not admit that Gronk is a significantly better blocker than Graham over more snaps and as has been pointed out, is a more productive and efficient receiver. Health was the only thing you could have argued was keeping Graham in the argument but considering their respective ages and health statuses heading into 2016... that was then.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,781
La Mancha.
I thought this thread was going to be about how Gronk,on principle, refused to answer the first question in "Celebrity Family Feud" the other night against the Peetes.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I thought the larger point was that Graham is nearly Gronk's equal given Gronk's health.

Finding direct numbers comparing the two in the number of snaps blocked is proving hard without PFF but in 2013, Gronk blocked on 132 of his 390 (33.8%) snaps played vs. 210 of 879 (23%) for Graham. Last year the Patriots ran over 1,000 plays -- if Gronk run blocks on even 30% of those snaps we are talking about 300 running plays. Do you know how many running plays the Bears had in Ditka's best receiving season? 356.

I think it requires bias to not admit that Gronk is a significantly better blocker than Graham over more snaps and as has been pointed out, is a more productive and efficient receiver. Health was the only thing you could have argued was keeping Graham in the argument but considering their respective ages and health statuses heading into 2016... that was then.
Which bit do you feel shows you don't understand this the best? When you fail to see how Gronk's presence appears to have little to no impact on the Patriot running game? When you take only one single season metric from Ditka's career to compare his impact as a blocker vs.modern TEs? When you fail to recognize that Ditka played 14 game seasons? When you fail to realize that on a high percentage of running plays run in the last 8-10 seasons, the TE is not a blocker but rather a decoy to pull defenders away from the point of attack?

Gronk is probably a better blocker than Jimmy Graham, although I would argue that you would have to look at more than highlight reels to make that case definitively. However, the systems in which Graham and Gronkowski play do not ask them to block much, if at all. As for efficiency, I have absolutely said that Gronkowski is a more efficient receiver. If Gronk stays healthy he will end up with the better career.

This is very boring and KFP wanted to have some fun trolling an Eagles thread for more idiocy on his part. I'm sure you have something important to add to the 780+ page thread on DFG and I would rather read more about the Eagles and Marciano's not-baby.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,419
Mansfield MA
You have missed the point. If a TE's run blocking were important, and meaningful would you not expect to see it in some of the overarching run metrics? And you don't. These two are not used in the same way a HS Tight end, or even a Mike Ditka type play/played the game. Rob Gronkowski may give better massages than Jimmy Graham, but it isn't all that meaningful to the run game given the offenses they are in.
You could make this argument about every position along the OL, frankly. A lot of folks think Marshal Yanda is the best G in football, but Baltimore was only 18th in rushing DVOA. Joe Thomas' Browns were 19th. Running offense requires several players to do their jobs effectively, and if part of the group stinks it's not going to matter if one or two members are great.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
Which bit do you feel shows you don't understand this the best? When you fail to see how Gronk's presence appears to have little to no impact on the Patriot running game? When you take only one single season metric from Ditka's career to compare his impact as a blocker vs.modern TEs? When you fail to recognize that Ditka played 14 game seasons? When you fail to realize that on a high percentage of running plays run in the last 8-10 seasons, the TE is not a blocker but rather a decoy to pull defenders away from the point of attack?

Gronk is probably a better blocker than Jimmy Graham, although I would argue that you would have to look at more than highlight reels to make that case definitively. However, the systems in which Graham and Gronkowski play do not ask them to block much, if at all. As for efficiency, I have absolutely said that Gronkowski is a more efficient receiver. If Gronk stays healthy he will end up with the better career.

This is very boring and KFP wanted to have some fun trolling an Eagles thread for more idiocy on his part. I'm sure you have something important to add to the 780+ page thread on DFG and I would rather read more about the Eagles and Marciano's not-baby.
You're right that this is boring but it's mostly because you fail to back up anything at all that you say and your noted Patriots hate is affecting your opinion here.

Well done bit of trolling, though. I've been impressed.
 

DanoooME

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
17,573
Williamsburg, VA
As a Seahawks fan who got to watch Graham regularly for part of the season last year, I found Graham's blocking hit or miss. He had some plays where he looked more like a matador than a blocker, but others where he actually dominated his man. He was required to block more as a part of the offensive scheme than in New Orleans, although I don't have specific numbers right now. He definitely isn't awful, and got better as the season went on and he got comfortable in the offense. Then he blew his knee out, so we never knew how good he was going to get.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,307
New York City
You could make this argument about every position along the OL, frankly. A lot of folks think Marshal Yanda is the best G in football, but Baltimore was only 18th in rushing DVOA. Joe Thomas' Browns were 19th. Running offense requires several players to do their jobs effectively, and if part of the group stinks it's not going to matter if one or two members are great.
I can't find it now--search isn't working for me--but Schaatz essentially said this when he chatted with us five years ago and Yammer made the exact same argument about run DVOA showing that Gronk wasn't an effective run blocker.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,973
I'm generally not a big believer in DYAR outside of the RB position and the QB position and even there it gets a bit fudgy. but even if the metric is flawed, these are pretty big differences. Let's see how the two of them do on health going forward.
Yeah, I was shocked to see how big the gap was. Whatever one thinks about DYAR, the disparity between them is huge enough to think there's something there.
 

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
3,356
Amstredam
To shift the topic from Gronk vs. Graham to Gronk vs. Brown or Top TE vs. Top WR.

What player/position is more valuable?

Barnwell states

"While Gronkowski is better than the rest of the league's tight ends to a greater extent than Brown is better than the rest of the league's wideouts, a dominant wide receiver is more valuable than even a transcendent tight end. There's a reason Graham wanted to be paid like a wideout: The market suggests that they're worth more."

I would take the top TE over the Top WR any day, the added value to the running game of a Gronk is being undersold in this comparison.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,973
To shift the topic from Gronk vs. Graham to Gronk vs. Brown or Top TE vs. Top WR.

What player/position is more valuable?

Barnwell states

"While Gronkowski is better than the rest of the league's tight ends to a greater extent than Brown is better than the rest of the league's wideouts, a dominant wide receiver is more valuable than even a transcendent tight end. There's a reason Graham wanted to be paid like a wideout: The market suggests that they're worth more."

I would take the top TE over the Top WR any day, the added value to the running game of a Gronk is being undersold in this comparison.
Yeah, that's some terribly poor logic from Barnwell. Just because the market prices for WRs are generally higher than they are for TEs does not mean that WRs are inherently more valuable contributors than TEs. It just means that they're more expensive. Which could be for a number of other reasons beyond their actual football contributions. I mean, the entire thesis of Moneyball is based on the fact that these types of market inefficiencies exist.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Well, Barnwell has proven over the years to a) be kind of an idiot and b) type stupid shit so he seems edgy or smarter than the average bear, so I wasn't particularly shocked by that rankings list or that particular rationale.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,419
Mansfield MA
Yeah, that's some terribly poor logic from Barnwell. Just because the market prices for WRs are generally higher than they are for TEs does not mean that WRs are inherently more valuable contributors than TEs. It just means that they're more expensive. Which could be for a number of other reasons beyond their actual football contributions. I mean, the entire thesis of Moneyball is based on the fact that these types of market inefficiencies exist.
And clearly Belichick thinks this is a market inefficiency - he's used three top-50 picks on TEs (including two first-rounders) and only two on WRs (and zero first-rounders). He also signed Gronk and Hernandez to big-money extensions while famously trading away Branch and Moss.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
You could make this argument about every position along the OL, frankly. A lot of folks think Marshal Yanda is the best G in football, but Baltimore was only 18th in rushing DVOA. Joe Thomas' Browns were 19th. Running offense requires several players to do their jobs effectively, and if part of the group stinks it's not going to matter if one or two members are great.
Again though, a G and a LT don't just run block, they also pass block. A TE is an entirely different animal. They rarely - if ever - pass block, and they frequently don't even run block. That is kind of the key point here. Ron Gronkowski having this benefit of being - subjectively I might add - a much better run blocker than Graham just isn't all that meaningful. Neither of these guys do much, if any, run blocking. I have not watched every single Patriot play for the last few years (although I have watched a decent percentage), but when I think of Gronkowski's blocks, they are usually either short chips on a screen or bubble screen or downfield blocks on the same. I can't think of many times when a Patriot running back has run behind Gronkowski, and I can't remember seeing a Saints RB run behind Graham..
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
You're right that this is boring but it's mostly because you fail to back up anything at all that you say and your noted Patriots hate is affecting your opinion here.

Well done bit of trolling, though. I've been impressed.
I've never been one to point to post counts, but you now have 4 posts in this thread that are beyond stupid. That is over 1% of your total posts being patently idiotic. Go do something funny in P&G or something. You need to pad your stats.
 

Rick Burlesons Yam Bag

Internet Cowboy, Turbo Accelerator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Yeah, that's some terribly poor logic from Barnwell. Just because the market prices for WRs are generally higher than they are for TEs does not mean that WRs are inherently more valuable contributors than TEs. It just means that they're more expensive. Which could be for a number of other reasons beyond their actual football contributions. I mean, the entire thesis of Moneyball is based on the fact that these types of market inefficiencies exist.
This would be an interesting thread topic. When I think about the value of TEs I think I do consider them to be below WRs.......but guys like Gronk and Graham re-write that equation a bit. When I think through the league and look at the top receiver on each team vs. top TE I think that in most every case it is the top WR who comes out on top (Even Eifert plays with AJ Green. Eifert may be better for the next few seasons, but I think it will be close in evaluating them for their careers).
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,419
Mansfield MA
Again though, a G and a LT don't just run block, they also pass block. A TE is an entirely different animal. They rarely - if ever - pass block, and they frequently don't even run block.
I don't disagree with this, but it misses the point of why I was quoting those FO run DVOA numbers - I was demonstrating that the run game is a team activity and one blocker doesn't move the needle significantly on team performance, whether he's a G or a T or a TE.

A TE's blocking certainly isn't as important as his receiving or an OL's blocking, but it's still something he does on 20-35% of snaps so it's not nothing, either.

That is kind of the key point here. Ron Gronkowski having this benefit of being - subjectively I might add - a much better run blocker than Graham just isn't all that meaningful. Neither of these guys do much, if any, run blocking. I have not watched every single Patriot play for the last few years (although I have watched a decent percentage), but when I think of Gronkowski's blocks, they are usually either short chips on a screen or bubble screen or downfield blocks on the same. I can't think of many times when a Patriot running back has run behind Gronkowski, and I can't remember seeing a Saints RB run behind Graham..
The Patriots are a game plan team, so some weeks Gronk's blocking will matter more than others. Obviously when they spread the field and only run the ball like eight times, it doesn't do a lot. Sometimes they like the matchup running left and then Gronk's just doing cutoff blocks on the backside - which can still be an important block, of course. His ability to block effectively gives Belichick options.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
28,860
Here
Dude, there is a 780 page thread on Deflategate where every single person posting is convinced that Brady was framed, and that isn't the only 100+ page Deflategate thread. The "dark"internet is solidly in place.
You think they're crazy? Try Googling "Climate Change" and check out how many parasites have barnacled onto that lunacy over the past 5 years.
 

Soxy

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,973
This would be an interesting thread topic. When I think about the value of TEs I think I do consider them to be below WRs.......but guys like Gronk and Graham re-write that equation a bit. When I think through the league and look at the top receiver on each team vs. top TE I think that in most every case it is the top WR who comes out on top (Even Eifert plays with AJ Green. Eifert may be better for the next few seasons, but I think it will be close in evaluating them for their careers).
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with Barnwell's conclusion; I just think his argument is fatally flawed. He's basically saying that all things that are more expensive are more valuable, otherwise they wouldn't be more expensive. He's begging the question.

Let's assume that WR, on the whole as a positional category, are more valuable than the league wide TE group. How much of that is simply due to positional scarcity at TE? I think part of the reason the Pats spend more time seeking out TEs vs WRs is that there simply are more quality WRs to go around. There are only so many human beings on this planet with the unique combination of size and athleticism to be dominant tight ends. One would think that would drive up the price of the top TEs, due to supply and demand. But the demand doesn't seem to really be there. At least, not as high as it is for WRs. A ton of teams are much more likely to seek out the sexier acquisition of a top tier WR instead of a top tier TE.