Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oochymp

Best Trio

  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's the best?

    • Steelers (Roethlisberger, Bell, Brown)
      23
    • Packers (Rodgers, Lacy, Nelson)
      2
    • Seahawks (Wilson, Lynch, Graham)
      2
    • Cowboys (Romo, McFadden, Bryant)
      0
    • Vikings (Bridgewater, Peterson, Wallace)
      0
    • Broncos (Manning, Anderson, Thomas)
      0
    • Colts (Luck, Gore, Hilton)
      0
    • Bills (Cassel, McCoy, Watkins)
      0
    • Panthers (Newton, Stewart, Benjamin)
      0
    • Bengals (Dalton, Hill, Green)
      0
    • Lions (Stafford, Bell, Johnson)
      0
    • Chiefs (Smith, Charles, Maclin)
      0
    • Saints (Brees, Ingram, Colston)
      0
    • Patriots (Brady, Blount, Gronkowski)
      1
    • Other (list/explain in a post)
      1


Recommended Posts

'top 5' is such an arbitrary identifier, there are about 8-10 backs I'd consider top level RBs with not a whole lot separating them, and Lacy's definitely one of them, I don't see any reason to arbitrarily decide that 3-5 of them aren't as good

 

RB unlike the receiver position have a larger disparity in regards to talent imo. With RB, you would think that the tier Elite 1 includes A.P, Jamaal Charles, and Marshawn Lynch. Those guys are in a class of their own. Then the next tier would include RBs like Murray, McCoy, Foster, Bell. I don't think you can put Lacy in the class with those guys; not yet anyways. I can't justify putting him with those guys. There are more clearer disparity lines at the RB position as to where the receivers, the top 7 or so are so incredibly close.

Edited by Dutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

RB unlike the receiver position have a larger disparity in regards to talent imo. With RB, you would think that the tier Elite 1 includes A.P, Jamaal Charles, and Marshawn Lynch. Those guys are in a class of their own. Then the next tier would include RBs like Murray, McCoy, Foster, Bell. I don't think you can put Lacy in the class with those guys; not yet anyways. I can't justify putting him with those guys. There are more clearer disparity lines at the RB position as to where the receivers, the top 7 or so are so incredibly close.

I think Eddie Lacy is underrated hard on these boards. The Packers offence leans on the pass way more than the run. Yet Lacy still puts up top tier numbers on less carries.

 

If he had the same as the other top tier RBs then I feel he would easily be in the same category as McCoy and Bell.

 

Also yea I'd take Graham over Gronk as top TE. Personally feel that Graham is the more consistent of the two, he has more versatility for play book options and although has been injured is more reliable than Gronk on that front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top tier numbers? He was 7th in yards, and only two players in the top 10 in yards had a worse average per attempt. He is top 10, but by no means is he putting up top tier numbers.

 

In fact the difference b/w him at 7th in yards, and Forte who's 12th in yards is barely over 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Gronk is the greatest TE of all time. I'll take Gronk at his best right now over even prime Gonzalez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, who voted 'other' and what team did I miss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lacy is a beast and his tenacity and quickness (despite being huge) reminds me of a Steven Jackson but I think it would be kind of hard to justify him as a top 5 RB. Not yet anyways.

Lacy has spent way too much time in his career trying to bounce runs outside instead of running north/south where his explosiveness and size would best serve him. He could be higher up on the top ten RB list. He can be extremely frustrating to watch and I'm not even a Packers fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronk is better than Graham, no doubt. But I went with Seattle anyways.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronk is better than Graham, no doubt. But I went with Seattle anyways.

By the end of the year you might be right if Russell Wilson responds to his undoubtedly increased role in the offense, but you also have to count on Lynch not slowing down, which I'm not so sure happens, but you COULD be right in saying this. I'm a Russell Wilson supporter. I think when he is asked to step up and throw more in games he does so and I think, like Tom Brady after the first 3 Super Bowl wins will step up when he's asked to do more in the offense. Don't forget that the Pats liked to run the ball and play defense in the early '00's. Brady wasn't putting up crazy numbers. I think we're going to see monumental changes in Seattle's offense this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A year or two ago we were seeing members on here list Graham on top 10 WRs lists, and when Graham's contract negotiations with the Saints were under way, people were arguing over the fact that he should be paid according to his premier receiving abilities, and be paid as the 10th best receiver in the league or so, rather than a top 2 TE in the game, which is what he ended up with slightly unfairly. I do agree Gronk is more complete. They both can turn good offenses into elite offenses, however.

Edited by BC
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking down Steelers vs Seahawks trio:

 

Ben >> Wilson

Bell is at least on Lynch's level as an overall RB.

Brown has been the most productive WR in football the last few years, so I think I'm gonna take him over Graham.

 

Yea, sorry I don't see a case for Seattle here. Green Bay is the only one with a case IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking down Steelers vs Seahawks trio:

 

Ben >> Wilson

Bell is at least on Lynch's level as an overall RB.

Brown has been the most productive WR in football the last few years, so I think I'm gonna take him over Graham.

 

Yea, sorry I don't see a case for Seattle here. Green Bay is the only one with a case IMO.

Most of that ranking depends on Russell ascending to truly elite status and him being the 3rd best QB instead of Ben. Somewhat based on Lynch being what has been the last 3-4 years. I would take Brown over Graham too, because you can throw the ball to Brown anywhere on the field and it can be a TD but he can also be a possession WR because he's so hard to keep off the board with his route running. For discussion purposes though I like the pick. It's bold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who troll voted for the Pats? :disgust:

 

A guy who bets on middle school spelling bees :shifty:

Edited by Buttriots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steelers trio edges the Packers.

 

Roeth is a top 3-5 QB but Rodgers is the better QB (best in the NFL).

 

Bell and Lacy are fairly even and this can be debated but the the biggest separation lies within the comparison of Brown and Nelson. Brown is quite a few notches ahead IMO.

 

Concerning Seattle, I'm an all-around Miami fan, so it might appear that I would have a bias of Graham ([]_[]) over the Patsies Glasskowski, but I'd be a fool to think so. Graham is not an all-purpose TE. I also have little love for Wilson. Wins are not an individual stat. And before I hear about QB rating, there's no QB in the NFL that faces the Cover 0's and 1' that Wilson is blessed to see that Lynch and Seattle's offensive schemes produce. Also, defense.

 

And although the Brady, Gronk connection is very solid, BB can plug n play just about any RB in NE's backfield and manufacture production (see Jonas Gray) so Blount means very little.

 

For the Viking fans. Kudos on Bridgewater, he'll be a very solid pro, but do yourselves a favor and rid yourselves of the glorified track star that we (Dolphins) kicked to the curb.

I'd argue its closer b/w Brown and Nelson then it is Bell and Lacy...

Edited by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronkowski might be the most complete TE ever to play in the NFL. People underrate him as a blocker. He's a great blocker in addition to all the things he does as a receiver. Pats offense isn't even close to the same without him when he's hurt.

 

And Bangy I don't know what you mean by Graham being a more versatile TE. The Pats line Gronk up in the slot all the time. Gronk is just as much of a mismatch as Graham, but he's also one of the best blocking TE's in the game.

I know that both can line up in the slot but for me by versatility I'd take Graham saying that he can and iirc has lined up at WR which Gronk hasn't (I don't just mean in the slot) which is were I feel Graham has the advantage.

 

Plus imo with the teams that have been around them O lines included Grahams productivity imo has been a greater I influence on his team than Gronk.

 

I fully expected people to disagree as yes Gronk is better at blocking than Graham. I'd still personally take Graham over Gronk.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that both can line up in the slot but for me by versatility I'd take Graham saying that he can and iirc has lined up at WR which Gronk hasn't (I don't just mean in the slot) which is were I feel Graham has the advantage.

 

Plus imo with the teams that have been around them O lines included Grahams productivity imo has been a greater I influence on his team than Gronk.

 

I fully expected people to disagree as yes Gronk is better at blocking than Graham. I'd still personally take Graham over Gronk.

 

Please just stop, Bangy. Its not close. Gronk is #1 by a long shot. To say that Gronk has a disadvantage, because as a TE he doesn't line up in the WR position, (whether or not that is correct), is just really dumb. Gronk is the better pass-catcher, Gronk is the better blocker, Gronk is the better TE and if he lined up as a WR, he'd be a better WR too.

 

I don't think Graham is even #2 in the league, and whoever is #2 is leagues behind Gronkowski.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In 2011, Gronkowski, in his second season in the NFL, set the single-season record for touchdowns by a tight end with 17 receiving touchdowns, and 18 overall, as well as the single-season record for receiving yards by a tight end, with 1,327. That season, he became the first tight end in NFL history to lead the league in receiving touchdowns. In his first three seasons, he had 38 receiving touchdowns in 43 games; no other tight end has had more than 25.

 

So, actually, Gronk is better at the one thing Graham is good at. To say Graham has more of an impact is just wrong. I understand people have their opinions, but there's really no evidence to back up the opinion that Graham is a more valuable/productive TE than Gronk.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Graham is even #2 in the league, and whoever is #2 is leagues behind Gronkowski.

I'm with you on Gronk>Graham, but you can't just throw something like that out and not at least say who else you think is better than Graham, it's almost as bad as voting 'other' and not explaining :dry:

Edited by oochymp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please just stop, Bangy. Its not close. Gronk is #1 by a long shot. To say that Gronk has a disadvantage, because as a TE he doesn't line up in the WR position, (whether or not that is correct), is just really dumb. Gronk is the better pass-catcher, Gronk is the better blocker, Gronk is the better TE and if he lined up as a WR, he'd be a better WR too.

 

I don't think Graham is even #2 in the league, and whoever is #2 is leagues behind Gronkowski.

To say that Graham isn't top 2 at the TE position is just Moronic.

 

Graham has consistently been been one of the most productive TE's in the league the last 5 years. In that time he's gone over 1200 receiving yards twice, in 4 of the 5 years has been over 850 yards, has an average YPC 12.3 and each year hasn't gone below 10. Also he has scored over 10Tds on 3 of those first 5 years. I would love to know why he isn't a top tier TE for you?

 

All I'm saying is that I would prefer Graham over Gronk, I'd personally take Grahams durability, athleticism and route running over Gronk. I agree that Gronk is better at blocking and probably has better hands but I'd personally take Graham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I grade TEs I'm not looking solely at receiving stats. Jimmy Graham, to me, is far more a WR than a TE. He simply doesn't do what a TE is supposed to, at least he doesn't do it very well.

 

Vernon Davis is a better all-around TE. So is Jason Witten. Olsen may be above Graham at this point. Jimmy is either 4th or 5th on my list and I still think I may be overrating him based on his pass-catching abilities.


To say that Graham isn't top 2 at the TE position is just Moronic.

Graham has consistently been been one of the most productive TE's in the league the last 5 years. In that time he's gone over 1200 receiving yards twice, in 4 of the 5 years has been over 850 yards, has an average YPC 12.3 and each year hasn't gone below 10. Also he has scored over 10Tds on 3 of those first 5 years. I would love to know why he isn't a top tier TE for you?

All I'm saying is that I would prefer Graham over Gronk, I'd personally take Grahams durability, athleticism and route running over Gronk. I agree that Gronk is better at blocking and probably has better hands but I'd personally take Graham.

 

Because a TE's primary job is not to rack up yards and TDs, though yes, that is nice. Jimmy Graham cannot block near as well as people like Jason Witten, Vernon Davis, and many others. His receiving threat makes up for that a lot, but he isn't as good of a TE as Witten or Davis. You're just using the fantasy numbers argument, which is what vaulted Graham into this discussion in the first place.

 

Even by your argument you make no sense. Gronk is a better route-runner, a better athlete, and highlighting his (non-existent) durability issues is funny given that Graham was playing hurt the last two years.

Edited by Thanatos19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I grade TEs I'm not looking solely at receiving stats. Jimmy Graham, to me, is far more a WR than a TE. He simply doesn't do what a TE is supposed to, at least he doesn't do it very well.

 

Vernon Davis is a better all-around TE. So is Jason Witten. Olsen may be above Graham at this point. Jimmy is either 4th or 5th on my list and I still think I may be overrating him based on his pass-catching abilities.

 

 

Because a TE's primary job is not to rack up yards and TDs, though yes, that is nice. Jimmy Graham cannot block near as well as people like Jason Witten, Vernon Davis, and many others. His receiving threat makes up for that a lot, but he isn't as good of a TE as Witten or Davis. You're just using the fantasy numbers argument, which is what vaulted Graham into this discussion in the first place.

 

Even by your argument you make no sense. Gronk is a better route-runner, a better athlete, and highlighting his (non-existent) durability issues is funny given that Graham was playing hurt the last two years.

Dude this isn't 1980 the position of TE has evolved so much especially over the last 5-10 years. Do you realise there are receiving TE's who do still block but have a better ability to help out the passing game by being an extra receiver instead of blocking.

 

You do also realise that although a TE's primary job is to block but not their sole purpose?

 

By saying what your saying you are doing a huge discredit to more recieving TEs such as Gates, Witten, Bennett and Olsen who are more focused on the passing side than just blocking.

 

Also you understand the meaning of durability right? Graham has missed 1 game in 4 years due to an injury, he's had knocks the last two games but played through them and still put up good numbers. Gronk has missed 15 games in that same period..... Graham is more durable.

 

Also have you seen the two run routes? Graham is cleaner, sharper and quick in his routes compared to Gronk.

 

I'm not if it's just me and you don't want to lose a debate against :lolbangyfail: or what, but your arguement is moronic. More so because my general perception and prefer is a guy like Graham instead of Gronk because that's basically what your trying to attack.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that Graham is a better player then Gronk, but there is truth to Bangy's claim for Graham to be more versatile. No tight end plays out wide as much as Graham...

 

Which was largely the reason for his claim for wanting to be paid like a receiver wasn't totally laughed at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronk had a way better season than Graham receiving last year..... and he balled out of his mind in the playoffs.....

 

Really can't see a good argument for preferring Graham over Gronk........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×