Brandon Tate's future as a PATRIOT

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

If Tate was not thought of much in NE,I am sure Belichick would have drafted a WR in the mid rounds of the draft this year....

Unless he is eyeing a top name talent in FA...Which I doubt,Brandon's future is not in danger IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just take a look at his draft year contemporaries.

drafted before Tate:

Darrius Heyward-Bey
Michael Crabtree
Jeremy Maclin
Percy Harvin
Hakeem Nicks
Kenny Brit
Brian Robiskie
Mohamed Massaquoi
Derrick Williams

drafted after Tate:

Mike Wallace
Johnny Knox
Austin Collie
Brian Hartline
Louis Murphy
Mike Thomas
and a collection of (so far) scrubs


Most of those players had more catches in their rookie years than Tate had year two (Those in bold had fewer catches in their true rookie years than Tate had in his second year). It is too late for Tate? Of course not. However, to pretend that it's all about his lost rookie season, or his age, is disingenuous.

 

[supafly]

I feel weird that I keep defending a player I'm not especially attached to. I really don't expect him to be great or anything, I'm just saying he's useful.

As far as the Jackson comparisons, they're not close, and they couldn't ever be. Between kickoffs, rushing, and receiving, Tate has literally tripled Jackson's career yardage with far superior averages per catch, run, and return. And he was drafted almost 50 picks lower. If that's not close enough to "4-5 times better a player" and "a much lower pick", sorry. I'll tone down the hyperbole.

I'm with you buddy, fair enough point on almost 50 picks lower--as I only saw it as 2nd rd/3rd rd.

You don't have to tone down anything

 

[AzPatsFan]

Of course lets not count any of the the WRs in front on him, such as HOF Randy Moss, prolific Wes Welker, or Dion Branch, or the presence of TEs like Gronkowski or Hernandez, not to mention the pass catching of RBs like Faulk or Woodhead...

That has next to nothing to do about his performance or lack thereof.

 

[OhExaulted1]

Please stop posting that unspeakable word.

I hear ya. At this point it stands for post-traumatic. The last month has been absolute torture.

 

[randomk1]

Just take a look at his draft year contemporaries.

drafted before Tate:

Darrius Heyward-Bey
Michael Crabtree
Jeremy Maclin
Percy Harvin
Hakeem Nicks
Kenny Brit
Brian Robiskie
Mohamed Massaquoi
Derrick Williams

drafted after Tate:

Mike Wallace
Johnny Knox
Austin Collie
Brian Hartline
Louis Murphy
Mike Thomas
and a collection of (so far) scrubs


Most of those players had more catches in their rookie years than Tate had year two (Those in bold had fewer catches in their true rookie years than Tate had in his second year). It is too late for Tate? Of course not. However, to pretend that it's all about his lost rookie season, or his age, is disingenuous.

What would this O look like if we had drafted Wallace? Madden mode.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course lets not count any of the the WRs in front on him, such as HOF Randy Moss, prolific Wes Welker, or Dion Branch, or the presence of TEs like Gronkowski or Hernandez, not to mention the pass catching of RBs like Faulk or Woodhead...

That has next to nothing to do about his performance or lack thereof.

His performance was better when Moss was on the team to draw attention away. He had 11 of his 24 catches in those first 4 games. Once teams didn't have to worry about the threat of Moss, Tate ended up with 13 catches in his next 12 games, was without a catch in the playoffs, and finished the post-Moss season averaging just 1 catch per game (13 games, 13 catches).

 

[JoeSixPat]

His performance was better when Moss was on the team to draw attention away. He had 11 of his 24 catches in those first 4 games. Once teams didn't have to worry about the threat of Moss, Tate ended up with 13 catches in his next 12 games, was without a catch in the playoffs, and finished the post-Moss season averaging just 1 catch per game (13 games, 13 catches).

Good points... though I'm not sure why anyone would insist on bringing Tate's lack of production in 2009 into the picture. I guess Brady had the same "faults" in 2000 though even he couldn't blame that on injury.

While it seems clear that Tate's not the best route runner and everyone would agree he's got a lot to learn, the jury's still out and he could go either way.

The lockout is NOT helping him - that's for sure... hopefully he and Brady can get some practice time on their own and work on developing their timing and Tate can earn Brady's confidence.

As much as I - and presumably Brady and Belichick - would like Tate to develop into a good all around quality route running WR, that's not really a role that the Patriots need to fill in 2011. They just need him to be able to beat DBs deep with his speed, be in the right place for Brady's bomb, and hold onto the ball.

Currently,even in that limited role, I'd say that he hasn't yet earned Brady's confidence - and until he does, he's not going to be a credible deep threat.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Of course lets not count any of the the WRs in front on him, such as HOF Randy Moss, prolific Wes Welker, or Dion Branch, or the presence of TEs like Gronkowski or Hernandez, not to mention the pass catching of RBs like Faulk or Woodhead...

That has next to nothing to do about his performance or lack thereof.

Tate, a starting WR, had the sixth most receptions on the team... behind two WRs, two TEs, and a RB. If he had shown that he could get open and make catches, he wouldn't be that far down the list, period. No need to make excuses for him: he might turn into a good player, but he just isn't one yet. No need to overthink this.

 

[Deus Irae]

Good points... though I'm not sure why anyone would insist on bringing Tate's lack of production in 2009 into the picture.

I may have missed it but, going back over the thread, I didn't see any posters bringing Tate's lack of production in 2009 into the picture.

 

[Oswlek]

What would this O look like if we had drafted Wallace? Madden mode.

It would look about the same as it did last year. :confused2:

Tate doesn't lack physical skills, he lacks comprehensive awareness of NE's system. Wallace's numbers have more to do with Roeth + only one other competent receiver on the team than any physical superiority to Brandon.

His performance was better when Moss was on the team to draw attention away. He had 11 of his 24 catches in those first 4 games. Once teams didn't have to worry about the threat of Moss, Tate ended up with 13 catches in his next 12 games, was without a catch in the playoffs, and finished the post-Moss season averaging just 1 catch per game (13 games, 13 catches).

It was less Moss "drawing attention away" and more a shift in role. When Moss was here, that allowed NE to use Tate with more short and intermediate routes. Once Moss left and Branch returned, NE had tons of options for short and intermediate, forcing Tate into a playing the deeper side of the field.

This led to predictibility with routes, which, combined with Brady's higher comfort level with the other options suppressed Tate's numbers.

I'd be willing to bet that, had he stayed healthy in 2009, Tate would have had similar numbers in just half a season. He simply got caught in a numbers game last year - his first in nearly 2 full seasons. I don't have high hopes for the kid, but I could see him being a Patten redux.

 

[Oswlek]

Tate, a starting WR, had the sixth most receptions on the team... behind two WRs, two TEs, and a RB. If he had shown that he could get open and make catches, he wouldn't be that far down the list, period. No need to make excuses for him: he might turn into a good player, but he just isn't one yet. No need to overthink this.

Yes and no.

I agree that Brandon has a ways to go to prove he should be one of the first options.

That said, for a kid who hadn't played in nearly two years, who was competing against two Brady Binkies at WR and two studs at TE while getting his first taste of NFL action, coming in 6th in receptions is perfectly respectible.

Admittedly, it was disappointing to see his role diminish as the year went on, but I think that had more to do with NE using him on deeper routes since they were so flush with intermediate threats.

 

[spacecrime]

Chad Jackson was a 2nd, while Tate was a 3rd---I don't know if that qualifies as a 'much lower pick,'

Jackson taken 36th overall, Tate 83rd over all. That is a much, much lower pick, similar to the difference between Nate Solder (17) or Ras-I Dowling (33) and Stevan Ridley (73).

 

[Ring 6]

His performance was better when Moss was on the team to draw attention away. He had 11 of his 24 catches in those first 4 games. Once teams didn't have to worry about the threat of Moss, Tate ended up with 13 catches in his next 12 games, was without a catch in the playoffs, and finished the post-Moss season averaging just 1 catch per game (13 games, 13 catches).

In fairness that coincided with Branch's arrival as well. I think with the 2010 versions of each player, Branch takes more passes away from other WRs than Moss.

 

[Ring 6]

Tate, a starting WR, had the sixth most receptions on the team... behind two WRs, two TEs, and a RB. If he had shown that he could get open and make catches, he wouldn't be that far down the list, period. No need to make excuses for him: he might turn into a good player, but he just isn't one yet. No need to overthink this.

I'm not sure what the argument is. If we are discussing Tate's perfromance last year, he was a medicore 3rd/4th WR. He shouldnt be considered a starter IMO. WHile he technically starter games he wasn't close to the top 2 at WR is snaps played.
IF we are talking about the raw ability that he showed and trying to project whether that can translate into a quality WR I think we have certainly seen enough to know its possible, but he has quite a bit of improvement to go. The fact that he was injured the 2 previous years would seem to contribute to the optimistic view that he should be that much better this year than last year as we have seen with many players getting back one year but really being all the way back in the 2nd.

 

[jmt57]

I know this was brought up previously but I think it's worth mentioning again: the Patriots evolved from an offense that barely utilized its tight ends as targets in the passing game to one that had two legitimate pass catching tight ends. I don't have the stats in front of me but I think it's a fair assumption that the Pats went with a 2-TE formation far more often in 2010 than they had in a very long time.

No doubt that Tate has room to improve, but what exactly were people expecting? The same stats as Randy Moss had a few years ago from Tate once Moss was off the roster? I get the feeling that is what some not only wanted, but for some reason actually expected; it should have been obvious that was not realistic.

Yes, I know he has been on the roster for two years but practice and film study is still no equivalent of actual game experience. More often than not receivers take about three years to develop (see the Reggie Wayne example). So why are so many eager to dump Tate after 18 NFL games in order to draft another WR - who will then take three years to develop, learn the Pats' system, and get into rhythm with Brady and the rest of the offense?

One thing that always comes to mind whenever I read a 'let's cut/fire this guy' thread is 'okay; who is going to replace him that will be an improvement? Let's give Tate (and Price) a little time; the idea of pulling the plug already doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, I know he has been on the roster for two years but practice and film study is still no equivalent of actual game experience. More often than not receivers take about three years to develop (see the Reggie Wayne example). So why are so many eager to dump Tate after 18 NFL games in order to draft another WR - who will then take three years to develop, learn the Pats' system, and get into rhythm with Brady and the rest of the offense?

The Reggie Wayne example was a poor example, given that Wayne went from 27 receptions in 13 games to 49 receptions the next season. Also, as I noted, most of Tate's draft year contemporaries who were good enough to make it as receivers in the league put up better numbers as rookies than Tate did in his second year.

The reason people want to bring in someone is because Tate didn't get the job done, and there's no guarantee he'll get it done moving forward. It's really that simple.

 

[supafly]

Jackson taken 36th overall, Tate 83rd over all. That is a much, much lower pick, similar to the difference between Nate Solder (17) or Ras-I Dowling (33) and Stevan Ridley (73).

That it a very fair statement, and I had explained my incorrect thinking on the previous page before you posted. As I said, I was incorrectly comparing 2nd round to 3rd round. When you break down the individual pick numbers, you certainly have a viable and fair point.

That said, I still am not sure that in the 12 games where Jackson played in with only ONE start is not at least somewhat comparable to where Tate's last 13 games played in with 10 starts. They both had 13 catches in that period with 3 TD's each.

To top it off, Tate already had another year of experience in this system in team meetings, scheme and offensive formation knowledge, and film breakdown, whereas Chad Jackson was coming in as a natural rookie with absolutely no experience in any aspect of this offense, and no knowledge of schemes, routes, or film breakdown. I still do not agree with the statement that Tate has already proven himself as "4 to 5 times better" but to each his own, as semantics and knit picking do not have to come into play here.

I DO believe that Tate is already a better player than Jackson, as he provides a very decent KO return option, and has a better YPC average (18 to 12). I have been a Tate supporter, and have been sticking up for him since day one, although I do believe that I had some of the same patience with Chad Jackson. I don't think there's really any debate there, although I do feel if Tate does not step up this year, we will hear more of those comparisons--rightful or not.

I'm with you buddy, fair enough point on almost 50 picks lower--as I only saw it as 2nd rd/3rd rd.

You don't have to tone down anything

This was my direct quote in response to the 2nd rd/3rd rd comment, and came on the page directly after his comment--which was actually a page or two before yours.

 

[DaBruinz]

Just take a look at his draft year contemporaries.

drafted before Tate:

Darrius Heyward-Bey
Michael Crabtree
Jeremy Maclin
Percy Harvin
Hakeem Nicks
Kenny Brit
Brian Robiskie
Mohamed Massaquoi
Derrick Williams

drafted after Tate:

Mike Wallace
Johnny Knox
Austin Collie
Brian Hartline
Louis Murphy
Mike Thomas
and a collection of (so far) scrubs


Most of those players had more catches in their rookie years than Tate had year two (Those in bold had fewer catches in their true rookie years than Tate had in his second year). It is too late for Tate? Of course not. However, to pretend that it's all about his lost rookie season, or his age, is disingenuous.

What is disingenuous is trying to compare Tate, who was 5th or 6th on the receiver chart to guys like Wallace, Murphy and Collie who were in the top 4 or 3..

So is acting like the lost year was because of something minor and not complications from his ACL injury.

 

[DaBruinz]

The Reggie Wayne example was a poor example, given that Wayne went from 27 receptions in 13 games to 49 receptions the next season. Also, as I noted, most of Tate's draft year contemporaries who were good enough to make it as receivers in the league put up better numbers as rookies than Tate did in his second year.

The reason people want to bring in someone is because Tate didn't get the job done, and there's no guarantee he'll get it done moving forward. It's really that simple.

No. What is a poor example what you posted because it ignores where the players were on their respective teams receiving depth chart.

Essentially, you are punishing Tate because he had Moss/Branch, Welker, Gronkowski, Hernandez, Faulk/Woodhead, in front of him on the depth charts.

Collie - Ended up being the number 2 receiver for the colts because of injuries to Gonzalez and Clark.

Wallace - Was the #2 receiver opposite Holmes because the Steelers didn't have anyone else..

Nicks - Started off as the #3 WR and 4th in the receiving depth chart.

Murphy - Was the #2 receiver on the Raiders depth chart...

Now, could you let everyone know which of those players were recovering from a torn ACL during their rookie year? And which one of them had a Hall of Fame WR as the primary receiver on the team?