Considering Tate
may come much cheaper, I'd be comfortable with signing Tate over Edelman.
Tate's 2 years younger, he's an even better punt returner (which is really saying something because Edelman is very, very good) and is certainly more of a legit down field threat. Tate has a WR's pedigree too, in that he's been doing it since before college and there's something to be said for a natural WR over a learned one. Tate is a hustler, plays for the team's best interest, blocks, and can play the slot very well. And, he's missed ONE game in the last 3 seasons.
If you could get Tate for $6M guaranteed, versus Edelman's $8M (minimum), and turn him loose with TB12, wouldn't you do it as GM of the Pats?
So many teams are looking to the draft for WR's since this is called the best year for WR's in a long time an underestimated dude like Tate could easily slip through the first wave of signings and then be even cheaper.
FWIW here's Tate's assessment from NFL.com who list him as a FA bargian-
1. Golden Tate, WR, Seattle Seahawks: Instead of pointing out what Tate isn't (a No. 1 receiver), appreciate him for what he is. Although his counting stats have been artificially deflated in the league's run-heaviest offense, Tate led all NFL receivers in forced missed tackles and yards after catch per reception, while doubling as the most effective punt returner in the league. He's a willing blocker, excels on bubble screens and crossing routes, is able to beat cornerbacks deep and has improved every season.