Brandon Tate's future as a PATRIOT

[ay-yo]

Your explanation of what a #1 WR is simply is not what's required of a #1 WR.

Let me clarify. I don't consider being #1 on a team's depth chart being a number 1 receiver. A number 1 wr in my view is an elite wr. Like the ones I listed. If you don't like my terminology please save you commentary for someone who cares.

My determination of who is a #1 is also not based on what a defense tries to stop first. The point I was trying to make was that defenses try to stop a good, but not great, rb before they worry about Wallace. If Wallace was a true #1, that is he was an elite player last year, they would worry about an elite player before a good one.

 

[Deus Irae]

Let me clarify. I don't consider being #1 on a team's depth chart being a number 1 receiver. A number 1 wr in my view is an elite wr. Like the ones I listed. If you don't like my terminology please save you rant for someone who cares.

My determination of who is a #1 is also not based on what a defense tries to stop first. The point I was trying to make was that defenses try to stop a good, but not great, rb before they worry about Wallace. If Wallace was a true #1, that is he was an elite player last year, they would worry about an elite player before a good one.

I made a 1 line comment, not a rant. Also, there's a difference between an elite WR and #1 WR, just as there's a difference between a QB1 and an elite QB, and your argument as to what determines a #1 WR was laughable, as guys like Lynn Swann and Michael Irvin make clear. If you can't figure that out, that's your problem , and more power to Ausbacker. Long may he mock your position.

 

[ay-yo]

I edited that about 30 seconds after the post. How you saw that I have no idea.

 

[BlueThunder]

evidently within the 30 seconds before you posted your edit...simple math

 

[ay-yo]

BTW ausbacker you've ignored my original question the first two times so I'll try one last time.

Why will never get over Wallace and Tate being taken back to back. Surely you're not stupid enough to think every team drafts the BPA with every single pick, are you?

 

[randomk1]

Wallace made alot of plays that few receivers in the league can make last year. He has room for improvement but to me Wallace is already alot scarier than Mendenhall. I would definately consider him a #1

If my memory serves me right he was pretty good against us last year aswell.

 

[ausbacker]

I wrote "he ain't #1 material".

Ain't = is not = present tense. Never said he couldn't improve to become a number 1. Last year he was not as good as the players I listed who I feel are true number 1 receivers.

It's always funny watching someone who knows they are wrong attempt to save face in an argument.

BTW ausbacker you've ignored my original question the first two times so I'll try one last time.

Why will never get over Wallace and Tate being taken back to back. Surely you're not stupid enough to think every team drafts the BPA with every single pick, are you?

Because whoever scouted Tate and favorably compared him against someone who is a burner and can actually run routes should be fired on the spot.

Nice to see you agree Wallace was the BPA available in retrospect and a clear number 1 receiver in the NFL.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure I'll ever be able to get over this fact;

Round 3 Pick 19 (83) Brandon Tate - WR North Carolina
Round 3 Pick 20 (84) Mike Wallace - Mississippi

What a stuff up. Easily a number 1 WR vs a 4/5 WR. Sigh.

This is a reason why I have always said that 90% of what a player becomes happens after they are drafted.
I would bet that if you polled all 32 teams they would have had these guys rated somewhere close to each other, and no one would have expeced Wallace to develop this much this quickly. (If they did he would have gone a lot earlier)
But if you look at a college Jr or Sr when they are drafted, they are far from a finished product.
First, they may have played against competition that can make the NFL in a few games, but especially with 1st rounders, they were physically superior to most of the players they faced. There are tons of factors in how they respond to tougher more consistent competition.
Second, the mental part of the game is heavily advanced in the NFL.
Third, is coaching. Proper technique is a huge coaching point in the NFL, and most rookies need a lot of technique work.
On top of this you have other issues such as:
-Working out. They must get physically stronger and in better shape to play at a high level in the NFL 99% of the time
-Commitment. These guys get big $$. Do they work hard or coast.
-Off the field. We all remember when we were 21-25 years old. There are plently of things to do after dark that would be detrimental to being an NFL player and growing better. We all knew people who made those mistakes and screwed up their 'simple' lives. Hand over a few mill, and it gets easier to mess up.
-Nutrition. These guys are actually feeding themselves for the first time in thier lives. Again, divergence occurs.
-Responsilbility. Again, they are now on their own for the first time (not all but most) and must make good choices or they will bust.

THere are many other factors. Basically, you are asking a young person to become an adult, while needing to build their body, stay in shape, perfect skills, and compete against the best in the world.
Is there any surprise that the draft is a crapshoot?

 

[Ring 6]

It's always funny watching someone who knows they are wrong attempt to save face in an argument.


Because whoever scouted Tate and favorably compared him against someone who is a burner and can actually run routes should be fired on the spot.

Nice to see you agree Wallace was the BPA available in retrospect and a clear number 1 receiver in the NFL.

I think you are overestimating the difference between Tate and Wallace predraft compared to what they have developed into.
The Wallace you describe as being scouted would have been a top 15 pick.

 

[NEPats1]

FWIW here's what Reiss said about Tate/Wallace draft topic:

Hey Mike, it really hurts to see Mike Wallace become the deep threat/big play maker with Pittsburgh that Patriots so desperately need, especially since he was selected right after Brandon Tate. Do you know if the Patriots considered Wallace instead of Tate?
Mike Reiss
(12:28 PM)


Mike, I could be off on this, but I think Wallace didn't have great production in college and thus he was a projection of sorts for NFL teams. I'm not sure if the Patriots considered him, but I seem to remember one scout pointing to Wallace and saying "That's the challenge in the scouting process."

Chat: Chat with Mike Reiss - SportsNation - ESPN Boston

Fun fact: Also I think he's the lawfirm's cousin.

 

[ausbacker]

I think you are overestimating the difference between Tate and Wallace predraft compared to what they have developed into.
The Wallace you describe as being scouted would have been a top 15 pick.

It's all easy after the fact but;

Brandon Tate combine report

Mike Wallace combine report

One described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now I'm not going to pretend I'm Albert Einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

 

[Deus Irae]

it's all easy after the fact but;

brandon tate combine report

mike wallace combine report

one described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now i'm not going to pretend i'm albert einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

How DARE you question Bill Belichick on ANYTHING!!!!????

 

[ausbacker]

how DARE you question bill Belichick on ANYTHING!!!!????

I certainly appreciate why BB stockpiles picks Deus. Let's put it that way.

 

[Deus Irae]

I certainly appreciate why BB stockpiles picks Deus. Let's put it that way.

I was actually just screwing around, but the all-caps didn't work right.

 

[ausbacker]

I was actually just screwing around, but the all-caps didn't work right.

How very teenager of you!

 

[Deus Irae]

How very teenager of you!

Well, I was going for pre-teen foot stomping, but teen's not bad.

 

[Snake Eyes]

It's all easy after the fact but;

Brandon Tate combine report

Mike Wallace combine report

One described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now I'm not going to pretend I'm Albert Einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

Those are good points but an additional factor that should be considered is that Tate was going to have to sit for a season while Wallace was ready to go, if you have a rookie for an initial 5yr contract and 1 of them is lost to injury than that's an automatic 20% reduction in value, likely a tad more because people are often not quite the same after ligament tears, even if they can still perform at a high level.

Would the pros for Tate be so high, even with the reduction in value due to injury, as to out-weight a pick of Wallace?

 

[Ring 6]

It's all easy after the fact but;

Brandon Tate combine report

Mike Wallace combine report

One described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now I'm not going to pretend I'm Albert Einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

You really can't consider those blurbs a draft evaluation. They are awful thin and only really summarize on field production.
The Wallace one said a team could take a shot on DAY 2, which then was 4th or later.
When Tate was drafted many draft analysts said he would have been a #1 if he wasn't injured.
I think you are trying to make this a nobrainer that it simply wasnt.

 

[ausbacker]

You really can't consider those blurbs a draft evaluation. They are awful thin and only really summarize on field production.
The Wallace one said a team could take a shot on DAY 2, which then was 4th or later.
When Tate was drafted many draft analysts said he would have been a #1 if he wasn't injured.
I think you are trying to make this a nobrainer that it simply wasnt.

Rightio chum. Here's it simplified for you. One is a wide receiver the other is a special teamer who showed glimpses of being a wide receiver.

Their respective performances in the NFL suggest as such too. I'd really like Tate to get it but I'm not sure he will.

 

[Ring 6]

It's all easy after the fact but;

Brandon Tate combine report

Mike Wallace combine report

One described as primarily a return specialist before somewhat of a break out senior season with raw route running ability then injured opposed to a burner (40 yard dash top performer) improving with route running and pass catching in light of ugly drops and press coverage struggles.

Now I'm not going to pretend I'm Albert Einstein but which one sounds like a wide receiver pre-draft?

Again, I think that shows the crapshoot the draft is.
I give more credit and blame to coaching than selecting when evaluating a draft. I give most of the credit or blame to the player and his work ethic. Anyone drafted in the 3rd round (or even considered to be drafted in the 3rd round) has enough ability to be a very good player in this league if they develop. Of course that is part of the evaluation, but a very hard part.
I rarely rip draft choices, and just as rarely give praise for choices because I think it is a very inexact science and what happens after draft day has more to do with the career of the player than what happened before.