The Lifespan of Elite TEs (1 Viewer)

[LHUCKS]

Let's look at some of the best fantasy TEs in the history of the game and how long they were able to peform at a high level.

Ozzie Newsome

                +-------------------------+                 |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 1978 cle |  16 |    38    589  15.5    2 || 1979 cle |  16 |    55    781  14.2    9 || 1980 cle |  16 |    51    594  11.6    3 || 1981 cle |  16 |    69   1002  14.5    6 || 1982 cle |   9 |    49    633  12.9    3 || 1983 cle |  16 |    89    970  10.9    6 || 1984 cle |  16 |    89   1001  11.2    5 || 1985 cle |  16 |    62    711  11.5    5 || 1986 cle |  16 |    39    417  10.7    3 || 1987 cle |  13 |    34    375  11.0    0 || 1988 cle |  16 |    35    343   9.8    2 || 1989 cle |  16 |    29    324  11.2    1 || 1990 cle |  16 |    23    240  10.4    2 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 198 |   662   7980  12.1   47 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+Okay, 14 years is impressive but after year 8, 39 receptions was the max. Granted it was a different era, but the stats are relative and we see a noticable decline at year 8. Shannon Sharpe

                +-------------------------+                 |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 1990 den |  16 |     7     99  14.1    1 || 1991 den |  16 |    22    322  14.6    1 || 1992 den |  16 |    53    640  12.1    2 || 1993 den |  16 |    81    995  12.3    9 || 1994 den |  15 |    87   1010  11.6    4 || 1995 den |  13 |    63    756  12.0    4 || 1996 den |  15 |    80   1062  13.3   10 || 1997 den |  16 |    72   1107  15.4    3 || 1998 den |  16 |    64    768  12.0   10 || 1999 den |   5 |    23    224   9.7    0 || 2000 bal |  16 |    67    810  12.1    5 || 2001 bal |  16 |    73    811  11.1    2 || 2002 den |  12 |    61    686  11.2    3 || 2003 den |  15 |    62    770  12.4    8 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 203 |   815  10060  12.3   62 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+Okay, so we have 14 years and a noticable consistency near the end of his career...very impressive. That being said, in the last five years Shannon missed a higher percentage of games. Additionally, his numbers were never at that elite level he attained earlier on in his career, although they were very good. Kellen Winslow

                +-------------------------+                 |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 1979 sdg |   7 |    25    255  10.2    2 || 1980 sdg |  16 |    89   1290  14.5    9 || 1981 sdg |  16 |    88   1075  12.2   10 || 1982 sdg |   9 |    54    721  13.4    6 || 1983 sdg |  16 |    88   1172  13.3    8 || 1984 sdg |   7 |    55    663  12.1    2 || 1985 sdg |  10 |    25    318  12.7    0 || 1986 sdg |  16 |    64    728  11.4    5 || 1987 sdg |  12 |    53    519   9.8    3 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 109 |   541   6741  12.5   45 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+Winslow had quite the injury plagued career, but what is interesting here is that he lasted about nine years. His last season with 800 yards or more was in year 5 of his career.Conclusion: Gonzo is arguably the best pass catching TE to ever play the game, but expecting 3rd round VBD value from him any longer is a very risky proposition IMHO and a top 5 Dynasty ranking is significantly too high given some of the younger options available.

 

[David Yudkin]

I have not seen Gonzo taken anywhere near the third round this year, and IMO, Sharpe is the closest player to emulate for a career track.

Newsome and Winslow were 20 years earlier and not an apples to apples comparison.

As far as I thought we were instructed for dynasty rankings, IIRC, we were asked to rank players on a 3 year window so counting production only for the next 3 years (unless the ranking requirements changed this season vs others).

Is ranking Gonzo where he is ranked unreasonable given that he will be playing at 30, 31, and 32? IMO, he should have plently of production in those years to rank him in the Top 5 over those years.

 

[LHUCKS]

I have not seen Gonzo taken anywhere near the third round this year, and IMO, Sharpe is the closest player to emulate for a career track.

If he is taken as a top 5 TE in dynasty drafts he will have been taken too early was my point. Even the fifth round is too early IMHO.

Newsome and Winslow were 20 years earlier and not an apples to apples comparison.

I'm specifically focusing on percentage decrease in production and total years played...I'm not looking at the actual totals for obvious reasons that you pointed out.

As far as I thought we were instructed for dynasty rankings, IIRC, we were asked to rank players on a 3 year window so counting production only for the next 3 years (unless the ranking requirements changed this season vs others).

A three year window is different than true dynasty rankings IMHO.

Is ranking Gonzo where he is ranked unreasonable given that he will be playing at 30, 31, and 32?  IMO, he should have plently of production in those years to rank him in the Top 5 over those years.

Top 5 for redraft perhaps, not top 5 for dynasty which is the point of this thread.

 

[gang-wars]

Top 5 for redraft perhaps, not top 5 for dynasty which is the point of this thread.

I think he means that Gonzo will be ranked in the top 5 in terms of fantasy points over the next 3 years. In PPR, he's an even safer bet. Now is 3 years enough to look ahead? It's on the low end, 4 might be the sweet spot. But it's hard to project 5+ years ahead in the NFL. The wheels can come off very quickly, even for a TE/WR. One injury could make you a start to backup, or starter to out of the league.

I'd be interested to know what you think "true dynasty" rankings are? Not projecting forward at all, just taking into account the players age?

 

[Weiner Dog]

Man, I was floored to see Ozzie's pedestrian numbers (of course, compared to the more utilized TE's of today). Only three seasons with more than 800 yards.

Gonzo has six seasons with 800+ yards.

 

[Workhorse]

Good post.

Add:

BEN COATES

+-------------------------+                 |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+-------------------------+| 1991 nwe |  16 |    10     95   9.5    1 || 1992 nwe |  16 |    20    171   8.6    3 || 1993 nwe |  16 |    53    659  12.4    8 || 1994 nwe |  16 |    96   1174  12.2    7 || 1995 nwe |  16 |    84    915  10.9    6 || 1996 nwe |  16 |    62    682  11.0    9 || 1997 nwe |  16 |    66    737  11.2    8 || 1998 nwe |  14 |    67    668  10.0    6 || 1999 nwe |  16 |    32    370  11.6    2 || 2000 bal |   8 |     9     84   9.3    0 |+----------+-----+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 150 |   499   5555  11.1   50

 

[Mike Herman]

Annual fantasy rankings

Name          Year 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Newsome, Ozzie     5  1 11  3  3  4  2  7 12 18 14 19 18	Jackson, Keith     1  2  2  5  2  5  4 37  4   	 Winslow, Kellen   21  1  1  1  2 12 38  4  4   	 Gonzalez, Tony    19 10  2  1  1  2  1  2  7   	 Coates, Ben       38 20  3  1  1  3  2  3 17 61    Casper, Dave      28 34  1  3  1  5  4  7  2 39 51 	 Christensen, Todd 58 55 32  4  1  1  1  1  3 31    Jordan, Steve     49 32 22 12  3  6  3  4  5  6 12 10 56	Sharpe, Shannon   33 15  4  1  2  4  1  1  1 38  2  3  5  2

 

[David Yudkin]

Annual fantasy rankings

Name          Year 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Newsome, Ozzie     5  1 11  3  3  4  2  7 12 18 14 19 18	Jackson, Keith     1  2  2  5  2  5  4 37  4    	Winslow, Kellen   21  1  1  1  2 12 38  4  4    	Gonzalez, Tony    19 10  2  1  1  2  1  2  7    	Coates, Ben       38 20  3  1  1  3  2  3 17 61    Casper, Dave      28 34  1  3  1  5  4  7  2 39 51  	Christensen, Todd 58 55 32  4  1  1  1  1  3 31    Jordan, Steve     49 32 22 12  3  6  3  4  5  6 12 10 56	Sharpe, Shannon   33 15  4  1  2  4  1  1  1 38  2  3  5  2

Of these guys, Tony G was the only one to rank Top 10 for 8 years in a row.

 

[zamboni]

I agree that the run will end at some point, although much like previous predictions of Curtis Martin, it could be one or it could be five years. It's tough to say, although Gonzo is still pretty young.

I'm more cautious on how the offense will look like without Saunders running the show as opposed to whether father time will catch up to Gonzo in the near future.

 

[Workhorse]

Annual fantasy rankings

Name          Year 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Newsome, Ozzie     5  1 11  3  3  4  2  7 12 18 14 19 18	Jackson, Keith     1  2  2  5  2  5  4 37  4    	Winslow, Kellen   21  1  1  1  2 12 38  4  4    	Gonzalez, Tony    19 10  2  1  1  2  1  2  7    	Coates, Ben       38 20  3  1  1  3  2  3 17 61    Casper, Dave      28 34  1  3  1  5  4  7  2 39 51  	Christensen, Todd 58 55 32  4  1  1  1  1  3 31    Jordan, Steve     49 32 22 12  3  6  3  4  5  6 12 10 56	Sharpe, Shannon   33 15  4  1  2  4  1  1  1 38  2  3  5  2

Of these guys, Tony G was the only one to rank Top 10 for 8 years in a row.

I'm looking at consecutive top 5 rankings, since that's a better measure of an "elite" TE than top 10. Only Shannon Sharpe and Keith Jackson have done it for more than 6 straight seasons, with 7.

 

[CalBear]

Sharpe was the #2 ranked fantasy TE at age 35. Gonzo just turned 30. If your time horizon is three years, I don't see how you could possibly rank Gonzo any lower than #4.

 

[David Yudkin]

Sharpe was the #2 ranked fantasy TE at age 35. Gonzo just turned 30. If your time horizon is three years, I don't see how you could possibly rank Gonzo any lower than #4.

To clarify, I am not 100% sure that the dynasty rankings are intended for a 3-year window. Back when I was involved in getting dynasty ciontent off the ground, that was the baseline we set for soliciting staff for rankings. That may have changed for this season, but last I had heard the timeframe was 3 years. I am not sure if the staff that submitted rankings considered 3 years, 5 years, or 10 years in their rankings.

 

[Bob_Magaw]

a concept like "true" dynasty rankings would be very challenging to operationally define...

i agree 1-2 years too short-sighted...

but conversely, it is hard to look ahead 5-6-7-8 years down the road...

the problem is, there isn't (& i don't think there could be) a universally adopted timeline that would satisfy everybody's criteria...

some teams want to or are built to win now...

others prefer to not take on a player that might even be #1 at their position for next few years but than could hit the wall hard... like the people who passed on priest holmes a few years ago might be pretty happy about that decision...

it would be hard to impose from above a universal timeline that everybody should adhere to as the "correct" timeframe to view things from... it seems so dependent on variables like personal preference, idiosyncratic ways different rosters may be constituted, etc...

* nonetheless, FBG as a site does have to put out dynasty rankings, & the three year timeframe is the one that i have heard as well, which seems like a fair compromise... it would be hard to make a compelling case that four or five or any other number is the "right" one in such a way where everybody would agree on...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Two things: Gonzales doesn't block as often as many of the older tight ends, and that might preserve his body. He's really like a WR, and you'd probably be better off comparing him to other WRs.

That being said, it doesn't do me any good to know that Gonzales will decline by X% because of his age and that he shouldn't be drafted in the first three rounds. I need to know who to draft instead -- and to see how they do on average over the next five years. It wouldn't surprise me if such a player declines as much if not more than Gonzales.

 

[LHUCKS]

Two things: Gonzales doesn't block as often as many of the older tight ends, and that might preserve his body. He's really like a WR, and you'd probably be better off comparing him to other WRs.

That being said, it doesn't do me any good to know that Gonzales will decline by X% because of his age and that he shouldn't be drafted in the first three rounds. I need to know who to draft instead -- and to see how they do on average over the next five years. It wouldn't surprise me if such a player declines as much if not more than Gonzales.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Seems comparible to the careers of elite WRs only with fewer examples.

 

[LHUCKS]

Seems comparible to the careers of elite WRs only with fewer examples.

                +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1985 sfo |  16 |     6     26    4.3    1 |    49    927  18.9    3 || 1986 sfo |  16 |    10     72    7.2    1 |    86   1570  18.3   15 || 1987 sfo |  12 |     8     51    6.4    1 |    65   1078  16.6   22 || 1988 sfo |  16 |    13    107    8.2    1 |    64   1306  20.4    9 || 1989 sfo |  16 |     5     33    6.6    0 |    82   1483  18.1   17 || 1990 sfo |  16 |     2      0    0.0    0 |   100   1502  15.0   13 || 1991 sfo |  16 |     1      2    2.0    0 |    80   1206  15.1   14 || 1992 sfo |  16 |     9     58    6.4    1 |    84   1201  14.3   10 || 1993 sfo |  16 |     3     69   23.0    1 |    98   1503  15.3   15 || 1994 sfo |  16 |     7     93   13.3    2 |   112   1499  13.4   13 || 1995 sfo |  16 |     5     36    7.2    1 |   122   1848  15.1   15 || 1996 sfo |  16 |    11     77    7.0    1 |   108   1254  11.6    8 || 1997 sfo |   2 |     1    -10  -10.0    0 |     7     78  11.1    1 || 1998 sfo |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    82   1157  14.1    9 || 1999 sfo |  16 |     2     13    6.5    0 |    67    830  12.4    5 || 2000 sfo |  16 |     1     -2   -2.0    0 |    75    805  10.7    7 || 2001 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    83   1139  13.7    9 || 2002 oak |  16 |     3     20    6.7    0 |    92   1211  13.2    7 || 2003 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    63    869  13.8    2 || 2004 oak |   4 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     5     67  13.4    0 || 2004 sea |  13 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    25    362  14.5    3 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 303 |    87    645    7.4   10 |  1549  22895  14.8  197 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

     +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1987 phi |   9 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     5     84  16.8    2 || 1988 phi |  16 |     1      1    1.0    0 |    39    761  19.5    6 || 1989 phi |  16 |     2     16    8.0    0 |    45    605  13.4   11 || 1990 min |  16 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    27    413  15.3    3 || 1991 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    72    962  13.4    5 || 1992 min |  12 |     5     15    3.0    0 |    53    681  12.8    6 || 1993 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    86   1071  12.5    9 || 1994 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |   122   1256  10.3    7 || 1995 min |  16 |     1      0    0.0    0 |   122   1371  11.2   17 || 1996 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    96   1163  12.1   10 || 1997 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1069  12.0   13 || 1998 min |  16 |     1     -1   -1.0    0 |    78   1011  13.0   12 || 1999 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    90   1241  13.8   13 || 2000 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    96   1274  13.3    9 || 2001 min |  16 |     1      4    4.0    0 |    73    871  11.9    6 || 2002 mia |   5 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     8     66   8.2    1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 234 |    13     41    3.2    0 |  1101  13899  12.6  130 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

+--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1988 rai |  16 |    14     50    3.6    1 |    43    725  16.9    5 || 1989 rai |   1 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     1      8   8.0    0 || 1990 rai |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    18    265  14.7    3 || 1991 rai |  16 |     5     16    3.2    0 |    36    554  15.4    5 || 1992 rai |  15 |     3     -4   -1.3    0 |    49    693  14.1    7 || 1993 rai |  16 |     2      7    3.5    0 |    80   1180  14.8    7 || 1994 rai |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1309  14.7    9 || 1995 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1342  15.1   10 || 1996 oak |  16 |     6     35    5.8    0 |    90   1104  12.3    9 || 1997 oak |  16 |     5     19    3.8    0 |   104   1408  13.5    5 || 1998 oak |  16 |     1     -7   -7.0    0 |    81   1012  12.5    9 || 1999 oak |  16 |     1      4    4.0    0 |    90   1344  14.9    6 || 2000 oak |  16 |     3     12    4.0    0 |    76   1128  14.8   11 || 2001 oak |  16 |     4     39    9.8    0 |    91   1165  12.8    9 || 2002 oak |  16 |     6     19    3.2    0 |    81    930  11.5    2 || 2003 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    52    567  10.9    2 || 2004 tam |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    24    200   8.3    1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 255 |    50    190    3.8    1 |  1094  14934  13.7  100 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

You'll be challenged to find an elite TE that played for 16, 17 or 19 years...these three were off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

 

[David Yudkin]

Seems comparible to the careers of elite WRs only with fewer examples.

                +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1985 sfo |  16 |     6     26    4.3    1 |    49    927  18.9    3 || 1986 sfo |  16 |    10     72    7.2    1 |    86   1570  18.3   15 || 1987 sfo |  12 |     8     51    6.4    1 |    65   1078  16.6   22 || 1988 sfo |  16 |    13    107    8.2    1 |    64   1306  20.4    9 || 1989 sfo |  16 |     5     33    6.6    0 |    82   1483  18.1   17 || 1990 sfo |  16 |     2      0    0.0    0 |   100   1502  15.0   13 || 1991 sfo |  16 |     1      2    2.0    0 |    80   1206  15.1   14 || 1992 sfo |  16 |     9     58    6.4    1 |    84   1201  14.3   10 || 1993 sfo |  16 |     3     69   23.0    1 |    98   1503  15.3   15 || 1994 sfo |  16 |     7     93   13.3    2 |   112   1499  13.4   13 || 1995 sfo |  16 |     5     36    7.2    1 |   122   1848  15.1   15 || 1996 sfo |  16 |    11     77    7.0    1 |   108   1254  11.6    8 || 1997 sfo |   2 |     1    -10  -10.0    0 |     7     78  11.1    1 || 1998 sfo |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    82   1157  14.1    9 || 1999 sfo |  16 |     2     13    6.5    0 |    67    830  12.4    5 || 2000 sfo |  16 |     1     -2   -2.0    0 |    75    805  10.7    7 || 2001 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    83   1139  13.7    9 || 2002 oak |  16 |     3     20    6.7    0 |    92   1211  13.2    7 || 2003 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    63    869  13.8    2 || 2004 oak |   4 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     5     67  13.4    0 || 2004 sea |  13 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    25    362  14.5    3 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 303 |    87    645    7.4   10 |  1549  22895  14.8  197 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

     +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1987 phi |   9 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     5     84  16.8    2 || 1988 phi |  16 |     1      1    1.0    0 |    39    761  19.5    6 || 1989 phi |  16 |     2     16    8.0    0 |    45    605  13.4   11 || 1990 min |  16 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    27    413  15.3    3 || 1991 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    72    962  13.4    5 || 1992 min |  12 |     5     15    3.0    0 |    53    681  12.8    6 || 1993 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    86   1071  12.5    9 || 1994 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |   122   1256  10.3    7 || 1995 min |  16 |     1      0    0.0    0 |   122   1371  11.2   17 || 1996 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    96   1163  12.1   10 || 1997 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1069  12.0   13 || 1998 min |  16 |     1     -1   -1.0    0 |    78   1011  13.0   12 || 1999 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    90   1241  13.8   13 || 2000 min |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    96   1274  13.3    9 || 2001 min |  16 |     1      4    4.0    0 |    73    871  11.9    6 || 2002 mia |   5 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     8     66   8.2    1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 234 |    13     41    3.2    0 |  1101  13899  12.6  130 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

    +--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1988 rai |  16 |    14     50    3.6    1 |    43    725  16.9    5 || 1989 rai |   1 |     0      0    0.0    0 |     1      8   8.0    0 || 1990 rai |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    18    265  14.7    3 || 1991 rai |  16 |     5     16    3.2    0 |    36    554  15.4    5 || 1992 rai |  15 |     3     -4   -1.3    0 |    49    693  14.1    7 || 1993 rai |  16 |     2      7    3.5    0 |    80   1180  14.8    7 || 1994 rai |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1309  14.7    9 || 1995 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    89   1342  15.1   10 || 1996 oak |  16 |     6     35    5.8    0 |    90   1104  12.3    9 || 1997 oak |  16 |     5     19    3.8    0 |   104   1408  13.5    5 || 1998 oak |  16 |     1     -7   -7.0    0 |    81   1012  12.5    9 || 1999 oak |  16 |     1      4    4.0    0 |    90   1344  14.9    6 || 2000 oak |  16 |     3     12    4.0    0 |    76   1128  14.8   11 || 2001 oak |  16 |     4     39    9.8    0 |    91   1165  12.8    9 || 2002 oak |  16 |     6     19    3.2    0 |    81    930  11.5    2 || 2003 oak |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    52    567  10.9    2 || 2004 tam |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    24    200   8.3    1 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 255 |    50    190    3.8    1 |  1094  14934  13.7  100 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

You'll be challenged to find an elite TE that played for 16, 17 or 19 years...these three were off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

You'll be just as challenged to find ELITE WR in their 16th, 17th, or 19th years.Here are the only WR (BOTH of them) that scored 100+ fantasy points and in their 16th or later seasons:

Jerry Rice 2001 39 17 167.90 (WR 10)

Jerry Rice 2002 40 18 165.10 (WR 11)

Charlie Joiner 1985 38 17 135.20 (WR 14)

Jerry Rice 2000 38 16 122.30 (WR 25)

Charlie Joiner 1984 37 115.30 (WR 21)

I think it's clear that there are WR that play longer than most TE. But I hardly think 30 should be considered a death knell for Tony Gonzalez.

 

[LHUCKS]

But I hardly think 30 should be considered a death knell for Tony Gonzalez.

Not saying it's a death knell, just saying caveat emptor.

 

[Bri]

I have not seen Gonzo taken anywhere near the third round this year, and IMO, Sharpe is the closest player to emulate for a career track.

Newsome and Winslow were 20 years earlier and not an apples to apples comparison.

As far as I thought we were instructed for dynasty rankings, IIRC, we were asked to rank players on a 3 year window so counting production only for the next 3 years (unless the ranking requirements changed this season vs others).

Is ranking Gonzo where he is ranked unreasonable given that he will be playing at 30, 31, and 32? IMO, he should have plently of production in those years to rank him in the Top 5 over those years.

I agree with much of the above by David. Also IIRC Gonzo spikes every few years in his stats so we may be in for an esp good one this year.Gonzo hasn't had super serious injuries like Bavaro or even Pennington that makes ya wonder how long he'll play. He's not Eric Green or Bam Morris in that a team is worried about his off the field BS so his career might be cut short a little before you'd expect. I don't see any decline yet really. Yeah he's been on the decline since his 1200(?) yard season but did you expect him to repeat that? Is he not still a top TE?

 

[Gravity]

I think there are way too many issues for this posting to to really hold up upon a closer look:1. No way you can draw real conclusions form a sampling of 3 - especially when 2 of them are from a different era.2. No way you can draw real conclusions from other TE's to Gonzo. Gonzo is arguably the BEST pass catching tight end EVER. Ever. Its too difficult to apply what happened to others when you are talking about the absolute top (see Jerry Rice).3. A 3 year window is not a "true" dynasty ranking. Ummm....says who? Many, many of us believe that 3 year window is a very good dynasty measure. Frankly, I think anyone who tries to prognosticate beyond that is goign to be very disappointed. If there is one thing we have learned about the NFL it is that things will be very different in 3 years from now. 4.

If he is taken as a top 5 TE in dynasty drafts he will have been taken too early was my point. Even the fifth round is too early IMHO.

C'mon, you don't really believe that do you? In a TE required league, Gonzo will be insane value in the 5th round of a Dynasty draft. (And as Chase said, who else you gonna to take over him anyway?)Finally, Gonzo has shown no true signs of really slowing down. Don't tell me about last year. The guy had 78 catches and 905 yards. Yes, he had a meager 2 TD's but as we all know a) he needed to contribute more blocking last year b) Green only threw for 17 Total TD's so its not like he missed out. Its not as if all those TD's went elsewhere - it was much more on Green last year then on Gonzo.By the way, he had surgery to repair the lingering foot issue he's been dealing with the past couple of years.Don't fall into the trap of looking at Gonzo thru last years TD-colored glasses.He's got at least 3 more years as a top 5. With the next 2 at a top 2-3 pace.

 

[SSOG]

You'll be challenged to find an elite TE that played for 16, 17 or 19 years...these three were off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Sharpe probably could have done it, easily. He was the #2 TE in the land in his 14th season (and was *robbed* of a pro bowl berth, since he had more catches for more yards and more TDs, and a 65.6% catch rate to Heap's 50.9%). He definitely had enough game left in him to rank top-5 for another two seasons, and probably could have hung on after that in the top-10.