In this week's episode of TE1, Greg Olsen is joined by the legendary Tony Gonzalez, who paved the way for contract negotiation at the tight end position. Despite the progress that Gonzalez made, he points to George Kittle's new contract as evidence that the system is as dysfunctional as ever.

As the only professional sport that has the option to pay by position with the franchise tag, the NFL has created an environment in which teams pay their players based on the contracts of other competitors at the same position. Instead of basing compensation on the mere talent a player brings to the roster, teams judge their athlete's worth on a league-wide value that is artificially handicapped by the franchise tag.

"It's a broken system. It should not be done that way. It should be all just like basketball. If you average 20 points, it doesn't matter if you're a point guard, a power forward, a center, we're going to pay you like a guy who averages 20 points a game", Gonzalez said. (30:36)

The reality of paying comparatively is you end up with a structure that adds value to position over production - where a wide receiver is always going to make more than a tight end who had the same, if not more, impact on the field.

The duo uses the example of top performers like 49ers TE George Kittle and Cowboys WR Amari Cooper to show the difference between position as it relates to pay. Last season, Kittle played in two fewer games than Cooper and still ended his season with six more receptions, three fewer touchdowns, and only 136 less receiving yards than the Dallas star. Yet Cooper still averages out at $5 million more a season than the league's highest-paid tight end in Kittle.

Olsen added to the point, saying, "We get asked to do the same thing that the right and left tackle do, and we get asked to defeat the same guys in the passing game that the receivers do, but they pay us half." (33:23).

Gonzalez argues that when it comes down to it, tight ends should be compared to all other pass catchers in salary negotiations instead of being capped based on the market-value of others at the position. Talent is talent no matter how you break it down.

‍